European Union (EU) · economies in the Doing Business sample since 2005. An economy’s ease of doing business score is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the

Region Profile

European Union (EU)

European Union (EU)Doing Business 2020

Page 1

Region Profile of European Union (EU)

Doing Business 2020 Indicators(in order of appearance in the document)

Starting a business Procedures, time, cost and paid-in minimum capital to start a limited liability company

Dealing with construction permits Procedures, time and cost to complete all formalities to build a warehouse and the quality control and safetymechanisms in the construction permitting system

Getting electricity Procedures, time and cost to get connected to the electrical grid, and the reliability of the electricity supply andthe transparency of tariffs

Registering property Procedures, time and cost to transfer a property and the quality of the land administration system

Getting credit Movable collateral laws and credit information systems

Protecting minority investors Minority shareholders’ rights in related-party transactions and in corporate governance

Paying taxes Payments, time, total tax and contribution rate for a firm to comply with all tax regulations as well as postfilingprocesses

Trading across borders Time and cost to export the product of comparative advantage and import auto parts

Enforcing contracts Time and cost to resolve a commercial dispute and the quality of judicial processes

Resolving insolvency Time, cost, outcome and recovery rate for a commercial insolvency and the strength of the legal framework forinsolvency

Employing workers Flexibility in employment regulation and redundancy cost


Page 2

About Doing Business

The project provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement across 190 economies and selected cities at the subnational andregional level.

Doing Business

The project, launched in 2002, looks at domestic small and medium-size companies and measures the regulations applying to them through their lifecycle.

Doing Business

captures several important dimensions of the regulatory environment as it applies to local firms. It provides quantitative indicators on regulation forstarting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading acrossborders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency. also measures features of employing workers. Although does not present rankingsof economies on the employing workers indicators or include the topic in the aggregate ease of doing business score or ranking on the ease of doing business, it doespresent the data for these indicators.

Doing Business

Doing Business Doing Business

By gathering and analyzing comprehensive quantitative data to compare business regulation environments across economies and over time, encourageseconomies to compete towards more efficient regulation; offers measurable benchmarks for reform; and serves as a resource for academics, journalists, private sectorresearchers and others interested in the business climate of each economy.

Doing Business

In addition, offers detailed , which exhaustively cover business regulation and reform in different cities and regions within a nation.These studies provide data on the ease of doing business, rank each location, and recommend reforms to improve performance in each of the indicator areas. Selectedcities can compare their business regulations with other cities in the economy or region and with the 190 economies that has ranked.

Doing Business subnational studies

Doing Business

The first study, published in 2003, covered 5 indicator sets and 133 economies. This year’s study covers 11 indicator sets and 190 economies. Mostindicator sets refer to a case scenario in the largest business city of each economy, except for 11 economies that have a population of more than 100 million as of 2013(Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and the United States) where also collected datafor the second largest business city. The data for these 11 economies are a population-weighted average for the 2 largest business cities. The project has benefited fromfeedback from governments, academics, practitioners and reviewers. The initial goal remains: to provide an objective basis for understanding and improving theregulatory environment for business around the world.

Doing Business

Doing Business

To learn more about please visit .Doing Business doingbusiness.org


Page 3

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/subnational-reports

http://doingbusiness.org/

The Business Environment

For policy makers, knowing where their economy stands in the aggregate ranking on the ease of doing business is useful. It is also helpful to know how it ranks comparedwith other economies in the region and compared with the regional average. Another perspective is provided by the regional average rankings on the topics included inthe ease of doing business ranking and the ease of doing business score.

How economies in rank on the ease of doing businessEuropean Union (EU)

Denmark (Rank 4)

United Kingdom (Rank 8)

Sweden (Rank 10)

Lithuania (Rank 11)

Estonia (Rank 18)

Latvia (Rank 19)

Finland (Rank 20)

Germany (Rank 22)

Ireland (Rank 24)

Austria (Rank 27)

Spain (Rank 30)

France (Rank 32)

Slovenia (Rank 37)

Portugal (Rank 39)

Poland (Rank 40)

Czech Republic (Rank 41)

Netherlands (Rank 42)

Slovak Republic (Rank 45)

Belgium (Rank 46)

Croatia (Rank 51)

Hungary (Rank 52)

Cyprus (Rank 54)

Romania (Rank 55)

Italy (Rank 58)

Bulgaria (Rank 61)

Luxembourg (Rank 72)

Greece (Rank 79)

Malta (Rank 88)

Regional Average (Rank 39)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ease of Doing Business score

85.3

83.5

82.0

81.6

80.6

80.3

80.2

79.7

79.6

78.7

77.9

76.8

76.5

76.5

76.4

76.3

76.1

75.6

75.0

73.6

73.4

73.4

73.3

72.9

72.0

69.6

68.4

66.1

76.5

Note: The ease of doing business score captures the gap of each economy from the best regulatory performance observed on each of the indicators across alleconomies in the sample since 2005. An economy’s ease of doing business score is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the lowestand 100 represents the best performance. The ease of doing business ranking ranges from 1 to 190.Source: database

Doing Business

Doing Business


Page 4

Rankings on Doing Business topics - European Union (EU)

0

38

76

114

152

190

Starting a Business (68)

Dealing with Construction Permits (68)

Getting Electricity (52)

Registering Property (54)

Getting Credit (77)

Protecting Minority Investors (48)

Paying Taxes (44)

Trading across Borders (15)

Enforcing Contracts (50.0)

Resolving Insolvency (37.00)

Regional average ranking (Scale: Rank 190 center, Rank 1 outer edge)Source: database.Doing Business

Ease of Doing Business scores on Doing Business topics - European Union (EU)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Starting a Business (89.9)

Dealing with Construction Permits (72.6)

Getting Electricity (83.4)

Registering Property (74.3)

Getting Credit (60.0)

Protecting Minority Investors (67.1)

Paying Taxes (83.1)

Trading across Borders (97.3)

Enforcing Contracts (66.5)

Resolving Insolvency (70.5)

(Scale: Score 0 center, Score 100 outer edge)

Note: The ease of doing business score captures the gap of each economy from the best regulatory performance observed on each of the indicators across alleconomies in the Doing Business sample since 2005. An economy’s ease of doing business score is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the lowestand 100 represents the best performance. The ease of doing business ranking ranges from 1 to 190. Source: Doing Business database


Page 5

Starting a Business

This topic measures the number of procedures, time, cost and paid-in minimum capital requirement for a small- to medium-sized limited liability company to start up andformally operate in each economy’s largest business city.

To make the data comparable across 190 economies, uses a standardized business that is 100% domestically owned, has start-up capital equivalent to10 times the income per capita, engages in general industrial or commercial activities and employs between 10 and 50 people one month after the commencement ofoperations, all of whom are domestic nationals. Starting a Business considers two types of local limited liability companies that are identical in all aspects, except that onecompany is owned by 5 married women and the other by 5 married men. The ranking of economies on the ease of starting a business is determined by sorting theirscores for starting a business. These scores are the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators.

Doing Business

The most recent round of data collection for the project was completed in May 2019. .See the methodology for more information

What the indicators measure

Procedures to legally start and formally operate a company(number)

Preregistration (for example, name verification or reservation,notarization)

•

Registration in the economy’s largest business city•Postregistration (for example, social security registration,company seal)

•

Obtaining approval from spouse to start a business or to leavethe home to register the company

•

Obtaining any gender specific document for companyregistration and operation or national identification card

•

Time required to complete each procedure (calendar days)

Does not include time spent gathering information•Each procedure starts on a separate day (2 procedures cannotstart on the same day)

•

Procedures fully completed online are recorded as ½ day•Procedure is considered completed once final document isreceived

•

No prior contact with officials•Cost required to complete each procedure (% of income percapita)

Official costs only, no bribes•No professional fees unless services required by law orcommonly used in practice

•

Paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)

• Funds deposited in a bank or with third party before registrationor up to 3 months after incorporation

Case study assumptions

To make the data comparable across economies, several assumptions about the business and theprocedures are used. It is assumed that any required information is readily available and that theentrepreneur will pay no bribes.

The business:

-Is a limited liability company (or its legal equivalent). If there is more than one type of limitedliability company in the economy, the limited liability form most common among domestic firms ischosen. Information on the most common form is obtained from incorporation lawyers or thestatistical office.-Operates in the economy’s largest business city. For 11 economies the data are also collected forthe second largest business city.-Performs general industrial or commercial activities such as the production or sale to the public ofgoods or services. The business does not perform foreign trade activities and does not handleproducts subject to a special tax regime, for example, liquor or tobacco. It is not using heavilypolluting production processes.-Does not qualify for investment incentives or any special benefits.-Is 100% domestically owned.-Has five business owners, none of whom is a legal entity. One business owner holds 30% of thecompany shares, two owners have 20% of shares each, and two owners have 15% of shareseach.-Is managed by one local director.-Has between 10 and 50 employees one month after the commencement of operations, all of themdomestic nationals.-Has start-up capital of 10 times income per capita.-Has an estimated turnover of at least 100 times income per capita.-Leases the commercial plant or offices and is not a proprietor of real estate.-Has an annual lease for the office space equivalent to one income per capita.-Is in an office space of approximately 929 square meters (10,000 square feet).-Has a company deed that is 10 pages long.

The owners:

-Have reached the legal age of majority and are capable of making decisions as an adult. If thereis no legal age of majority, they are assumed to be 30 years old.-Are in good health and have no criminal record.-Are married, the marriage is monogamous and registered with the authorities.-Where the answer differs according to the legal system applicable to the woman or man inquestion (as may be the case in economies where there is legal plurality), the answer used will bethe one that applies to the majority of the population.


Page 6

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/starting-a-business

Starting a Business

How easy is it for entrepreneurs in economies in European Union (EU) to start a business? The global rankings of these economies on the ease of starting a businesssuggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.

Where do the region’s economies stand today?

How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of starting a business

Source: Doing Business database.

Greece (Rank 11)

Estonia (Rank 14)


Ireland (Rank 23)


Latvia (Rank 26)

Finland (Rank 31)

Lithuania (Rank 34)

France (Rank 37)

Sweden (Rank 39)

Slovenia (Rank 41)

Denmark (Rank 45)

Belgium (Rank 48)

Cyprus (Rank 50)

Portugal (Rank 63)


Malta (Rank 86)

Hungary (Rank 87)

Romania (Rank 91)

Spain (Rank 97)

Italy (Rank 98)

Bulgaria (Rank 113)

Croatia (Rank 114)


Germany (Rank 125)

Austria (Rank 127)

Poland (Rank 128)



75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

Starting a Business score

96.0

95.4

94.6

94.4

94.3

94.1

93.5

93.3

93.1

93.1

93.0

92.7

92.3

92.0

90.9

88.8

88.2

88.2

87.7

86.9

86.8

85.4

85.3

84.8

83.7

83.2

82.9

82.1

89.9


Page 7

Starting a Business

The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show what it takes to start a business in each economy in the region:the number of procedures, the time, the cost and the paid-in minimum capital requirement. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for theregion and for comparator regions can provide useful insights.

What it takes to start a business in economies in European Union (EU)

Procedure – Men (number)


Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

East Asia and the Pacific (EAP)

Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

Regional Average

Europe and Central Asia (ECA)

OECD High Income

Czech Republic

Germany

Austria

Bulgaria

Croatia

Italy

Slovakia

Spain

Hungary

Portugal

Romania

Belgium

Cyprus

Denmark

France

Luxembourg

Malta

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Netherlands

Sweden

United Kingdom

Estonia

Finland

Greece

Ireland

Slovenia

0 2 4 6 8 10

8.1

6.5

6.5

5.3

5.2

4.9

9.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0


Page 8

Starting a Business

Time – Men (days)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Poland

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Austria

Malta

Romania

Croatia

Luxembourg

Finland

Spain

Ireland

Italy

Germany

Slovenia

Sweden

Hungary

Portugal

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Belgium

United Kingdom

France

Greece

Denmark

Estonia

Netherlands

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

28.8

25.6

19.7

11.9

11.9

9.2

37.0

24.5

23.0

21.5

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.5

16.5

13.0

12.5

11.0

11.0

8.0

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.5


Page 9

Starting a Business

Cost – Men (% of income per capita)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Italy

Poland

Malta

Germany

Croatia

Cyprus

Belgium

Austria

Hungary

Netherlands

Spain

Portugal

Luxembourg

Greece

Latvia

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Estonia

Slovakia

Finland

France

Lithuania

Sweden

Romania

Denmark

Ireland

Slovenia

United Kingdom

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

31.4

17.4

16.7

4.0

3.1

3.0

13.8

11.6

6.7

6.5

6.2

5.6

5.3

4.7

4.5

4.0

3.9

1.9

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0


Page 10

Starting a Business

Paid-in min. capital (% of income per capita)



Regional Average

OECD High Income




Hungary

Slovenia

Germany

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Slovakia

Estonia

Spain

Austria

Sweden

Denmark

Poland

Finland

Croatia

Malta

Romania

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

France

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Netherlands

Portugal

United Kingdom

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

8.9

8.1

7.6

3.5

0.7

0.4

36.2

34.3

29.8

17.2

16.0

15.4

13.1

11.6

11.5

10.5

10.2

9.3

5.9

5.5

1.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 11

Dealing with Construction Permits

This topic tracks the procedures, time and cost to build a warehouse—including obtaining necessary the licenses and permits, submitting all required notifications,requesting and receiving all necessary inspections and obtaining utility connections. In addition, the Dealing with Construction Permits indicator measures the buildingquality control index, evaluating the quality of building regulations, the strength of quality control and safety mechanisms, liability and insurance regimes, and professionalcertification requirements. The most recent round of data collection was completed in May 2019. See the methodology for more information


Procedures to legally build a warehouse (number)

Submitting all relevant documents and obtaining all necessaryclearances, licenses, permits and certificates

•

Submitting all required notifications and receiving all necessaryinspections

•

Obtaining utility connections for water and sewerage•Registering and selling the warehouse after its completion•


Does not include time spent gathering information•Each procedure starts on a separate day—though proceduresthat can be fully completed online are an exception to this rule

•

Procedure is considered completed once final document isreceived

•

No prior contact with officials•Cost required to complete each procedure (% of income percapita)

Official costs only, no bribes•Building quality control index (0-15)

Quality of building regulations (0-2)•Quality control before construction (0-1)•Quality control during construction (0-3)•Quality control after construction (0-3)•Liability and insurance regimes (0-2)•Professional certifications (0-4)•


To make the data comparable across economies, several assumptions about the constructioncompany, the warehouse project and the utility connections are used.

The construction company (BuildCo):

- Is a limited liability company (or its legal equivalent) and operates in the economy’s largestbusiness city. For 11 economies the data are also collected for the second largest business city.- Is 100% domestically and privately owned; has five owners, none of whom is a legal entity. Has alicensed architect and a licensed engineer, both registered with the local association of architectsor engineers. BuildCo is not assumed to have any other employees who are technical or licensedexperts, such as geological or topographical experts.- Owns the land on which the warehouse will be built and will sell the warehouse upon itscompletion.

The warehouse:

- Will be used for general storage activities, such as storage of books or stationery.- Will have two stories, both above ground, with a total constructed area of approximately 1,300.6square meters (14,000 square feet). Each floor will be 3 meters (9 feet, 10 inches) high and will belocated on a land plot of approximately 929 square meters (10,000 square feet) that is 100%owned by BuildCo, and the warehouse is valued at 50 times income per capita.- Will have complete architectural and technical plans prepared by a licensed architect. Ifpreparation of the plans requires such steps as obtaining further documentation or getting priorapprovals from external agencies, these are counted as procedures.- Will take 30 weeks to construct (excluding all delays due to administrative and regulatoryrequirements).

The water and sewerage connections:

- Will be 150 meters (492 feet) from the existing water source and sewer tap. If there is no waterdelivery infrastructure in the economy, a borehole will be dug. If there is no sewerageinfrastructure, a septic tank in the smallest size available will be installed or built.- Will have an average water use of 662 liters (175 gallons) a day and an average wastewater flowof 568 liters (150 gallons) a day. Will have a peak water use of 1,325 liters (350 gallons) a day anda peak wastewater flow of 1,136 liters (300 gallons) a day.- Will have a constant level of water demand and wastewater flow throughout the year; will be 1inch in diameter for the water connection and 4 inches in diameter for the sewerage connection.


Page 12

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/dealing-with-construction-permits


How easy it is for entrepreneurs in economies in European Union (EU) to legally build a warehouse? The global rankings of these economies on the ease of dealing withconstruction permits suggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of dealing with construction permits


Denmark (Rank 4)

Lithuania (Rank 10)


Estonia (Rank 19)


Germany (Rank 30)

Sweden (Rank 31)

Ireland (Rank 36)

Poland (Rank 39)

Finland (Rank 42)

Bulgaria (Rank 43)

Belgium (Rank 45)

Austria (Rank 49)

France (Rank 52)

Latvia (Rank 56)

Malta (Rank 57)

Portugal (Rank 60)

Spain (Rank 79)

Greece (Rank 86)


Italy (Rank 97)

Hungary (Rank 108)

Slovenia (Rank 119)

Cyprus (Rank 125)


Romania (Rank 147)

Croatia (Rank 150)



0 20 40 60 80 100

Dealing with Construction Permits score

87.9

84.9

83.9

82.6

80.3

78.2

78.0

76.6

76.4

75.9

75.9

75.5

75.1

74.3

73.5

73.5

73.2

70.8

69.5

69.4

68.3

67.0

65.3

64.2

59.4

58.4

57.8

56.2

72.6


Page 13


The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show what it takes to comply with formalities to build a warehouse ineach economy in the region: the number of procedures, the time and the cost. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region and forcomparator regions can provide useful insights.

What it takes to comply with formalities to build a warehouse in economies in European Union (EU)

Procedures (number)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Romania

Croatia

Hungary

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Finland

Greece

Slovenia

Malta

Italy

Latvia

Portugal

Slovakia

Lithuania

Netherlands

Spain

Poland

Austria

Luxembourg

Belgium

Estonia

Ireland

France

Germany

United Kingdom

Cyprus

Sweden

Denmark

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

16.2

15.7

15.5

14.8

13.7

12.7

24.0

22.0

22.0

21.0

18.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

16.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

12.0

11.0

11.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

8.0

7.0


Page 14


Time (days)



Regional Average


OECD High Income



Cyprus

Slovakia

Romania

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Austria

France

Belgium

Hungary

Latvia

Italy

Greece

Malta

Ireland

Netherlands

Portugal

Luxembourg

Spain

Croatia

Poland

Germany

Sweden

Estonia

Bulgaria

United Kingdom

Lithuania

Finland

Denmark

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

191.2

176.5

170.1

152.3

132.3

123.6

507.0

300.0

260.0

247.5

246.0

222.0

213.0

212.0

192.5

192.0

189.5

180.0

179.0

164.0

161.0

160.0

155.0

147.0

146.0

137.0

126.0

117.0

103.0

97.0

86.0

74.0

65.0

64.0


Page 15


Cost (% of warehouse value)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Croatia

Spain

Ireland

France

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Italy

Slovenia

Malta

Romania

Greece

Sweden

Portugal

Austria

Germany

United Kingdom

Belgium

Cyprus

Finland

Luxembourg

Denmark

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Czech Republic

Estonia

Slovakia

0 2 4 6 8 10

4.4

4.0

3.6

3.2

1.9

1.5

9.2

4.7

4.1

3.9

3.6

3.4

3.4

2.7

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2


Page 16


Building quality control index (0-15)




OECD High Income

Regional Average



Luxembourg

Bulgaria

Malta

Austria

France

Hungary

Ireland

Lithuania

Romania

Slovenia

Belgium

Croatia

Greece

Latvia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Finland

Netherlands

Poland

Germany

Sweden

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Slovakia

0 3 6 9 12 15

12.5

12.1

11.6

11.5

9.4

9.0

15.0

14.0

14.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

12.0

12.0

12.0

12.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.5

9.0

9.0

8.0

8.0


Page 17

Getting Electricity

This topic measures the procedures, time and cost required for a business to obtain a permanent electricity connection for a newly constructed warehouse. Additionally,the reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs index measures reliability of supply, transparency of tariffs and the price of electricity. The most recent round of datacollection for the project was completed in May 2019. .See the methodology for more information


Procedures to obtain an electricity connection (number)

Submitting all relevant documents and obtaining all necessaryclearances and permits

•

Completing all required notifications and receiving all necessaryinspections

•

Obtaining external installation works and possibly purchasingmaterial for these works

•

Concluding any necessary supply contract and obtaining finalsupply

•


Is at least 1 calendar day•Each procedure starts on a separate day•Does not include time spent gathering information•Reflects the time spent in practice, with little follow-up and noprior contact with officials

•

Cost required to complete each procedure (% of income percapita)

Official costs only, no bribes•Value added tax excluded•

The reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs index (0-8)

Duration and frequency of power outages (0–3)•Tools to monitor power outages (0–1)•Tools to restore power supply (0–1)•Regulatory monitoring of utilities’ performance (0–1)•Financial deterrents limiting outages (0–1)•Transparency and accessibility of tariffs (0–1)•

Price of electricity (cents per kilowatt-hour)*

Price based on monthly bill for commercial warehouse in casestudy

•

*Note: measures the price of electricity, but it isnot included in the ease of doing business score nor in the rankingon the ease of getting electricity.

Doing Business


To make the data comparable across economies, several assumptions about the warehouse, theelectricity connection and the monthly consumption are used.

The warehouse:

- Is owned by a local entrepreneur and is used for storage of goods.- Is located in the economy’s largest business city. For 11 economies the data are also collected forthe second largest business city.- Is located in an area where similar warehouses are typically located and is in an area with nophysical constraints. For example, the property is not near a railway.- Is a new construction and is being connected to electricity for the first time.- Has two stories with a total surface area of approximately 1,300.6 square meters (14,000 squarefeet). The plot of land on which it is built is 929 square meters (10,000 square feet).

The electricity connection:

- Is a permanent one with a three-phase, four-wire Y connection with a subscribed capacity of 140-kilo-volt-ampere (kVA) with a power factor of 1, when 1 kVA = 1 kilowatt (kW).- Has a length of 150 meters. The connection is to either the low- or medium-voltage distributionnetwork and is either overhead or underground, whichever is more common in the area where thewarehouse is located and requires works that involve the crossing of a 10-meter road (such as byexcavation or overhead lines) but are all carried out on public land. There is no crossing of otherowners’ private property because the warehouse has access to a road.- Does not require work to install the internal wiring of the warehouse. This has already beencompleted up to and including the customer’s service panel or switchboard and the meter base.

The monthly consumption:

- It is assumed that the warehouse operates 30 days a month from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (8 hoursa day), with equipment utilized at 80% of capacity on average and that there are no electricity cuts(assumed for simplicity reasons) and the monthly energy consumption is 26,880 kilowatt-hours(kWh); hourly consumption is 112 kWh.- If multiple electricity suppliers exist, the warehouse is served by the cheapest supplier.- Tariffs effective in January of the current year are used for calculation of the price of electricity forthe warehouse. Although January has 31 days, for calculation purposes only 30 days are used.


Page 18

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/getting-electricity

Getting Electricity

How easy it is for entrepreneurs in economies in European Union (EU) to connect a warehouse to electricity? The global rankings of these economies on the ease ofgetting electricity suggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of getting electricity


Germany (Rank 5)


Sweden (Rank 10)


Lithuania (Rank 15)

France (Rank 17)

Denmark (Rank 21)

Slovenia (Rank 23)

Finland (Rank 24)

Austria (Rank 29)

Croatia (Rank 37)

Italy (Rank 38)

Greece (Rank 40)


Ireland (Rank 47)

Portugal (Rank 52)

Estonia (Rank 53)


Spain (Rank 55)


Poland (Rank 60)

Latvia (Rank 61)

Malta (Rank 73)

Cyprus (Rank 75)

Belgium (Rank 108)

Hungary (Rank 125)

Bulgaria (Rank 151)

Romania (Rank 157)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Getting Electricity score

98.8

96.9

96.2

95.6

92.9

92.0

90.2

89.2

89.0

87.7

86.8

86.1

84.7

84.3

84.2

83.3

83.3

83.3

83.0

82.5

82.3

82.3

79.3

78.4

70.6

63.3

55.1

53.7

83.4


Page 19

Getting Electricity

The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show what it takes to get a new electricity connection in each economyin the region: the number of procedures, the time and the cost. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region and for comparatorregions can provide useful insights.

What it takes to get an electricity connection in economies in European Union (EU)

Procedures (number)




Regional Average


OECD High Income


Romania

Belgium

Bulgaria

Austria

Cyprus

Estonia

Finland

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Croatia

Denmark

France

Italy

Latvia

Malta

Poland

Czech Republic

Germany

Lithuania

Sweden

United Kingdom

0 2 4 6 8 10

5.5

5.1

4.6

4.4

4.4

4.2

9.0

6.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0


Page 20

Getting Electricity

Time (days)



Regional Average

OECD High Income




Bulgaria

Hungary

Romania

Belgium

Cyprus

Poland

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Spain

Estonia

Slovakia

Ireland

Lithuania

Italy

Croatia

Portugal

Czech Republic

Luxembourg

France

Sweden

Greece

United Kingdom

Finland

Denmark

Slovenia

Germany

Austria

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

99.6

91.4

74.8

66.8

63.5

63.2

262.0

257.0

174.0

171.0

137.0

113.0

107.0

105.0

102.0

95.0

91.0

89.0

85.0

82.0

75.0

65.0

65.0

58.0

56.0

53.0

52.0

51.0

46.0

42.0

38.0

38.0

28.0

23.0


Page 21

Getting Electricity

Cost (% of income per capita)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Romania

Bulgaria

Malta

Croatia

Latvia

Slovakia

Italy

Estonia

Cyprus

Denmark

Belgium

Spain

Slovenia

Austria

Hungary

Greece

Ireland

Germany

Lithuania

Portugal

Luxembourg

Sweden

Finland

Netherlands

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Poland

France

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

594.6

419.6

407.2

271.9

111.6

61.0

405.8

386.8

273.8

261.4

233.4

219.6

138.9

138.7

116.6

100.1

93.3

93.1

92.9

85.8

74.7

68.2

57.1

37.0

33.6

33.6

32.7

29.3

27.5

24.5

23.1

23.1

16.3

5.0


Page 22

Getting Electricity

Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index (0-8)


Regional Average

OECD High Income





Belgium

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Lithuania

Netherlands

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Austria

Croatia

Denmark

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Luxembourg

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Bulgaria

Malta

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7.5

7.4

6.2

4.4

4.4

4.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.0

6.0


Page 23

Registering Property

This topic examines the steps, time and cost involved in registering property, assuming a standardized case of an entrepreneur who wants to purchase land and abuilding that is already registered and free of title dispute. In addition, the topic also measures the quality of the land administration system in each economy. The qualityof land administration index has five dimensions: reliability of infrastructure, transparency of information, geographic coverage, land dispute resolution, and equal accessto property rights. The most recent round of data collection for the project was completed in May 2019. .See the methodology for more information


Procedures to legally transfer title on immovable property(number)

Preregistration procedures (for example, checking for liens,notarizing sales agreement, paying property transfer taxes)

•

Registration procedures in the economy's largest business city.•Postregistration procedures (for example, filling title withmunicipality)

•


Does not include time spent gathering information•Each procedure starts on a separate day - though proceduresthat can be fully completed online are an exception to this rule

•

Procedure is considered completed once final document isreceived

•

No prior contact with officials•Cost required to complete each procedure (% of propertyvalue)

Official costs only (such as administrative fees, duties andtaxes).

•

Value Added Tax, Capital Gains Tax and illicit payments areexcluded

•

Quality of land administration index (0-30)

Reliability of infrastructure index (0-8)•Transparency of information index (0–6)•Geographic coverage index (0–8)•Land dispute resolution index (0–8)•Equal access to property rights index (-2–0)•


To make the data comparable across economies, several assumptions about the parties to thetransaction, the property and the procedures are used.

The parties (buyer and seller):

- Are limited liability companies (or the legal equivalent).- Are located in the periurban (that is, on the outskirts of the city but still within its official limits)area of the economy’s largest business city. For 11 economies the data are also collected for thesecond largest business city.- Are 100% domestically and privately owned.- Perform general commercial activities.

The property (fully owned by the seller):

- Has a value of 50 times income per capita, which equals the sale price.- Is fully owned by the seller.- Has no mortgages attached and has been under the same ownership for the past 10 years.- Is registered in the land registry or cadastre, or both, and is free of title disputes.- Is located in a periurban commercial zone (that is, on the outskirts of the city but still within itsofficial limits), and no rezoning is required.- Consists of land and a building. The land area is 557.4 square meters (6,000 square feet). A two-story warehouse of 929 square meters (10,000 square feet) is located on the land. The warehouseis 10 years old, is in good condition, has no heating system and complies with all safety standards,building codes and legal requirements. The property, consisting of land and building, will betransferred in its entirety.- Will not be subject to renovations or additional construction following the purchase.- Has no trees, natural water sources, natural reserves or historical monuments of any kind.- Will not be used for special purposes, and no special permits, such as for residential use,industrial plants, waste storage or certain types of agricultural activities, are required.- Has no occupants, and no other party holds a legal interest in it.


Page 24

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/registering-property


How easy it is for entrepreneurs in economies in European Union (EU) to transfer property? The global rankings of these economies on the ease of registering propertysuggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of registering property


Lithuania (Rank 4)

Estonia (Rank 6)


Sweden (Rank 9)

Denmark (Rank 11)

Latvia (Rank 25)

Italy (Rank 26)

Hungary (Rank 29)


Austria (Rank 31)


Finland (Rank 34)

Portugal (Rank 35)

Croatia (Rank 38)


Romania (Rank 46)

Slovenia (Rank 54)

Spain (Rank 59)

Ireland (Rank 60)

Bulgaria (Rank 66)

Cyprus (Rank 71)

Germany (Rank 76)

Poland (Rank 92)


France (Rank 99)

Belgium (Rank 139)

Malta (Rank 152)

Greece (Rank 156)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Registering Property score

93.0

91.0

90.2

90.1

89.9

82.3

81.7

80.1

80.1

80.0

79.7

79.0

78.4

77.4

75.7

75.0

72.1

71.7

71.7

69.8

67.9

66.6

63.9

63.9

63.3

51.8

48.5

46.9

74.3


Page 25


The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show the average recovery rate and the average strength of insolvencyframework index. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region and for comparator regions can provide useful insights.

What is takes to register property in economies in European Union (EU).

Procedures (number)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Greece

Belgium

Bulgaria

France

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Malta

Slovenia

Germany

Poland

Romania

Spain

United Kingdom

Croatia

Ireland

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Austria

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Lithuania

Slovakia

Portugal

Sweden

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

7.4

5.5

5.5

5.4

5.1

4.7

11.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

1.0

1.0


Page 26


Time (days)




Regional Average


OECD High Income


Poland

Finland

Germany

Slovenia

Belgium

France

Croatia

Ireland

Czech Republic

Luxembourg

Greece

United Kingdom

Austria

Bulgaria

Estonia

Hungary

Malta

Latvia

Slovakia

Italy

Romania

Spain

Portugal

Cyprus

Sweden

Denmark

Lithuania

Netherlands

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

71.9

63.7

27.1

26.6

23.6

20.8

135.0

61.5

52.0

50.5

49.0

42.0

33.0

31.5

27.5

26.5

26.0

21.5

20.5

19.0

17.5

17.5

17.0

16.5

16.5

16.0

14.5

13.0

10.0

9.0

7.0

4.0

3.5

2.5


Page 27


Cost (% of property value)




Regional Average


OECD High Income


Malta

Belgium

Luxembourg

Cyprus

France

Portugal

Germany

Ireland

Netherlands

Spain

Hungary

Greece

United Kingdom

Austria

Italy

Sweden

Czech Republic

Finland

Croatia

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Latvia

Romania

Lithuania

Denmark

Estonia

Poland

Slovakia

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

5.9

5.6

4.8

4.5

4.2

2.7

13.5

12.7

10.1

7.7

7.3

7.3

6.6

6.5

6.1

6.1

5.0

4.8

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.3

4.0

4.0

3.0

2.8

2.2

2.0

1.3

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.0


Page 28


Quality of the land administration index (0-30)


OECD High Income

Regional Average





Lithuania

Netherlands

Estonia

Sweden

Finland

Italy

Hungary

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Denmark

France

Croatia

Ireland

Austria

Cyprus

Germany

Slovenia

Latvia

Spain

Belgium

Portugal

Bulgaria

Poland

Romania

Malta

Greece

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

23.2

22.9

20.4

16.2

14.6

12.0

28.5

28.5

27.5

27.5

26.5

26.5

26.0

26.0

25.5

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.5

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

22.5

22.5

22.0

20.0

19.5

19.0

17.0

12.5

4.5


Page 29

Getting Credit

This topic explores two sets of issues—the strength of credit reporting systems and the effectiveness of collateral and bankruptcy laws in facilitating lending. The mostrecent round of data collection for the project was completed in May 2019. .See the methodology for more information


Strength of legal rights index (0–12)

Rights of borrowers and lenders through collateral laws (0-10)•Protection of secured creditors’ rights through bankruptcy laws(0-2)

•

Depth of credit information index (0–8)

Scope and accessibility of credit information distributed bycredit bureaus and credit registries (0-8)

•

Credit bureau coverage (% of adults)

Number of individuals and firms listed in largest credit bureauas a percentage of adult population

•

Credit registry coverage (% of adults)

Number of individuals and firms listed in credit registry as apercentage of adult population

•


assesses the sharing of credit information and the legal rights of borrowers andlenders with respect to secured transactions through 2 sets of indicators. The depth of creditinformation index measures rules and practices affecting the coverage, scope and accessibility ofcredit information available through a credit registry or a credit bureau. The strength of legal rightsindex measures the degree to which collateral and bankruptcy laws protect the rights of borrowersand lenders and thus facilitate lending. For each economy it is first determined whether a unitarysecured transactions system exists. Then two case scenarios, case A and case B, are used todetermine how a nonpossessory security interest is created, publicized and enforced according tothe law. Special emphasis is given to how the collateral registry operates (if registration of securityinterests is possible). The case scenarios involve a secured borrower, company ABC, and asecured lender, BizBank.

Doing Business

In some economies the legal framework for secured transactions will allow only case A or case B(not both) to apply. Both cases examine the same set of legal provisions relating to the use ofmovable collateral.

Several assumptions about the secured borrower (ABC) and lender (BizBank) are used:

- ABC is a domestic limited liability company (or its legal equivalent).- ABC has up to 50 employees.- ABC has its headquarters and only base of operations in the economy’s largest business city. For11 economies the data are also collected for the second largest business city.- Both ABC and BizBank are 100% domestically owned.

The case scenarios also involve assumptions. In case A, as collateral for the loan, ABC grantsBizBank a nonpossessory security interest in one category of movable assets, for example, itsmachinery or its inventory. ABC wants to keep both possession and ownership of the collateral. Ineconomies where the law does not allow nonpossessory security interests in movable property,ABC and BizBank use a fiduciary transfer-of-title arrangement (or a similar substitute fornonpossessory security interests).

In case B, ABC grants BizBank a business charge, enterprise charge, floating charge or anycharge that gives BizBank a security interest over ABC’s combined movable assets (or as much ofABC’s movable assets as possible). ABC keeps ownership and possession of the assets.


Page 30

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/getting-credit

Getting Credit

How well do the credit information systems and collateral and bankruptcy laws in economies in European Union (EU) facilitate access to credit? The global rankings ofthese economies on the ease of getting credit suggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of getting credit


Latvia (Rank 15)

Romania (Rank 25)


Hungary (Rank 37)

Poland (Rank 37)


Ireland (Rank 48)

Estonia (Rank 48)

Denmark (Rank 48)


Germany (Rank 48)

Lithuania (Rank 48)

Bulgaria (Rank 67)

Belgium (Rank 67)

Spain (Rank 80)

Finland (Rank 80)

Cyprus (Rank 80)

Sweden (Rank 80)

Austria (Rank 94)

Croatia (Rank 104)

France (Rank 104)

Portugal (Rank 119)

Greece (Rank 119)


Italy (Rank 119)

Slovenia (Rank 119)

Malta (Rank 144)



0 20 40 60 80 100

Getting Credit score

85.0

80.0

75.0

75.0

75.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

65.0

65.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

55.0

50.0

50.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

35.0

15.0

60.0


Page 31

Getting Credit

Another way to assess how well regulations and institutions support lending and borrowing in the region is to see where the region stands in the distribution of scoresacross regions. The first figure highlights the score on the strength of legal rights index in European Union (EU) and comparator regions. The second figure shows thesame thing for the depth of credit information index.

How strong are legal rights for borrowers and lenders

Strength of legal rights index (0-12)




OECD High Income

Regional Average



Hungary

Latvia

Romania

Belgium

Bulgaria

Denmark

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Ireland

Poland

Slovakia

Sweden

United Kingdom

Finland

Germany

Lithuania

Croatia

Spain

Austria

France

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Greece

Italy

Malta

Netherlands

Portugal

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

7.8

7.1

6.1

5.7

5.3

3.1

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0


Page 32

Getting Credit

Depth of credit information index (0-8)


OECD High Income


Regional Average




Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

United Kingdom

Austria

Czech Republic

Estonia

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Spain

Denmark

Finland

France

Hungary

Slovenia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Malta

Sweden

Luxembourg

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6.8

6.7

6.3

5.3

5.1

4.5

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

0.0


Page 33

Protecting Minority Investors

This topic measures the strength of minority shareholder protections against misuse of corporate assets by directors for their personal gain as well as shareholder rights,governance safeguards and corporate transparency requirements that reduce the risk of abuse. The most recent round of data collection for the project was completedin May 2019. .See the methodology for more information


: Disclosure, review, andapproval requirements for related-party transactions

• Extent of disclosure index (0–10)

: Ability of minorityshareholders to sue and hold interested directors liable forprejudicial related-party transactions; Available legalremedies (damages, disgorgement of profits, disqualificationfrom managerial position(s) for one year or more, rescission ofthe transaction)

• Extent of director liability index (0–10)

: Access to internalcorporate documents; Evidence obtainable during trial andallocation of legal expenses

• Ease of shareholder suits index (0–10)

Sum ofthe extent of disclosure, extent of director liability and ease ofshareholder suits indices

• Extent of conflict of interest regulation index (0-30):

: Shareholders’ rightsand role in major corporate decisions

• Extent of shareholder rights index (0-6)

: Governancesafeguards protecting shareholders from undue board controland entrenchment

• Extent of ownership and control index (0-7)

: Corporatetransparency on ownership stakes, compensation, audits andfinancial prospects

• Extent of corporate transparency index (0-7)

: Sum of theextent of shareholders rights, extent of ownership and controland extent of corporate transparency indices

• Extent of shareholder governance index (0–20)

: Sumof the extent of conflict of interest regulation and extent ofshareholder governance indices

• Strength of minority investor protection index (0–50)


To make the data comparable across economies, a case study uses several assumptions aboutthe business and the transaction.

- Is a publicly traded corporation listed on the economy’s most important stock exchange.- Has a board of directors and a chief executive officer (CEO) who may legally act on behalf ofBuyer where permitted, even if this is not specifically required by law.- Has a supervisory board in economies with a two-tier board system on which Mr. Jamesappointed 60% of the shareholder-elected members.- Has not adopted bylaws or articles of association that go beyond the minimum requirements.Does not follow codes, principles, recommendations or guidelines that are not mandatory.- Is a manufacturing company with its own distribution network.

The business (Buyer):

- Mr. James owns 60% of Buyer, sits on Buyer’s board of directors and elected two directors toBuyer’s five-member board.- Mr. James also owns 90% of Seller, a company that operates a chain of retail hardware stores.Seller recently closed a large number of its stores.- Mr. James proposes that Buyer purchase Seller’s unused fleet of trucks to expand Buyer’sdistribution of its food products, a proposal to which Buyer agrees. The price is equal to 10% ofBuyer’s assets and is higher than the market value.- The proposed transaction is part of the company’s principal activity and is not outside theauthority of the company.- Buyer enters into the transaction. All required approvals are obtained, and all required disclosuresmade—that is, the transaction was not entered into fraudulently.- The transaction causes damages to Buyer. Shareholders sue Mr. James and the executives anddirectors that approved the transaction.

The transaction involves the following details:


Page 34

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/protecting-minority-investors


How strong are investor protections against self-dealing in economies in European Union (EU)? The global rankings of these economies on the strength of investorprotection index suggest an answer. While the indicator does not measure all aspects related to the protection of minority investors, a higher ranking does indicate that aneconomy's regulations offer stronger investor protections against self-dealing in the areas measured.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of protecting minority investors



Ireland (Rank 13)

Slovenia (Rank 18)

Cyprus (Rank 21)

Bulgaria (Rank 25)

Sweden (Rank 28)

Spain (Rank 28)

Denmark (Rank 28)

Greece (Rank 37)

Croatia (Rank 37)

Austria (Rank 37)

Lithuania (Rank 37)

Belgium (Rank 45)

Latvia (Rank 45)

France (Rank 45)

Italy (Rank 51)

Poland (Rank 51)

Malta (Rank 51)

Finland (Rank 61)

Germany (Rank 61)

Portugal (Rank 61)

Romania (Rank 61)



Estonia (Rank 79)



Hungary (Rank 97)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Protecting Minority Investors score

84.0

80.0

78.0

76.0

74.0

72.0

72.0

72.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

68.0

68.0

68.0

66.0

66.0

66.0

62.0

62.0

62.0

62.0

62.0

58.0

58.0

56.0

54.0

54.0

67.1


Page 35

Paying Taxes

This topic records the taxes and mandatory contributions that a medium-size company must pay or withhold in a given year, as well as the administrative burden ofpaying taxes and contributions and complying with postfiling procedures (VAT refund and tax audit). The most recent round of data collection for the project wascompleted in May 2019 covering for the Paying Taxes indicator calendar year 2018 (January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018). See the methodology for more information.


Tax payments for a manufacturing company in 2018 (numberper year adjusted for electronic and joint filing and payment)

Total number of taxes and contributions paid or withheld,including consumption taxes (value added tax, sales tax orgoods and service tax)

•

Method and frequency of filing and payment•Time required to comply with 3 major taxes (hours per year)

Collecting information, computing tax payable•Preparing separate tax accounting books, if required•Completing tax return, filing with agencies•Arranging payment or withholding•

Total tax and contribution rate (% of commercial profits)

Profit or corporate income tax•Social contributions, labor taxes paid by employer•Property and property transfer taxes•Dividend, capital gains, financial transactions taxes•Waste collection, vehicle, road and other taxes•

Postfiling Index

Time to comply with VAT refund (hours)•Time to obtain VAT refund (weeks)•Time to comply with a corporate income tax correction (hours)•Time to complete a corporate income tax correction (weeks)•


Using a case scenario, records taxes and mandatory contributions a medium sizecompany must pay in a year, and measures the administrative burden of paying taxes,contributions and dealing with postfiling processes. Information is also compiled on frequency offiling and payments, time taken to comply with tax laws, time taken to comply with therequirements of postfiling processes and time waiting.

Doing Business

To make data comparable across economies, several assumptions are used:- TaxpayerCo is a medium-size business that started operations on January 1, 2017. It producesceramic flowerpots and sells them at retail.

Taxes and mandatory contributions are measuredat all levels of government.

- In June 2018, TaxpayerCo. makes a large capital purchase: the value of the machine is 65 timesincome per capita of the economy. Sales are equally spread per month (1,050 times income percapita divided by 12) and cost of goods sold are equally expensed per month (875 times incomeper capita divided by 12). The machinery seller is registered for VAT and excess input VAT incurredin June will be fully recovered after four consecutive months if the VAT rate is the same for inputs,sales and the machine and the tax reporting period is every month. Input VAT will exceed OutputVAT in June 2018.

All taxes and contributions recorded are paid in thesecond year of operation (calendar year 2018).

The VAT refund process:

- An error in calculation of income tax liability (for example, use of incorrect tax depreciation rates,or incorrectly treating an expense as tax deductible) leads to an incorrect income tax return and acorporate income tax underpayment. TaxpayerCo. discovered the error and voluntarily notified thetax authority. The value of the underpaid income tax liability is 5% of the corporate income taxliability due. TaxpayerCo. submits corrected information after the deadline for submitting the annualtax return, but within the tax assessment period.

The corporate income tax audit process:


Page 36

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/paying-taxes

Paying Taxes

What is the administrative burden of complying with taxes in economies in European Union (EU) —and how much do firms pay in taxes? The global rankings of theseeconomies on the ease of paying taxes offer useful information for assessing the tax compliance burden for businesses. The average ranking of the region provides auseful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of paying taxes


Ireland (Rank 4)

Denmark (Rank 8)

Finland (Rank 10)

Estonia (Rank 12)

Latvia (Rank 16)

Lithuania (Rank 18)




Cyprus (Rank 29)

Sweden (Rank 31)

Romania (Rank 32)

Spain (Rank 35)

Portugal (Rank 43)

Austria (Rank 44)

Slovenia (Rank 45)

Germany (Rank 46)

Croatia (Rank 49)



Hungary (Rank 56)

France (Rank 61)

Belgium (Rank 63)

Greece (Rank 72)

Poland (Rank 77)

Malta (Rank 78)

Bulgaria (Rank 97)

Italy (Rank 128)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Paying Taxes score

94.6

91.1

90.9

89.9

89.0

88.8

87.4

87.4

86.2

85.5

85.3

85.2

84.7

83.7

83.5

83.3

82.2

81.8

81.4

80.6

80.6

79.2

78.4

77.1

76.4

76.2

72.3

64.0

83.1


Page 37

Paying Taxes

The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show what it takes to comply with tax regulations in each economy inthe region—the number of payments per year, the time required to prepare, and file and pay the 3 major taxes (corporate income tax, VAT or sales tax and labor taxesand mandatory contributions), the total tax and contribution rate—as well as a postfiling index that measures the compliance with completing two processes: VAT cashrefund and tax audit. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region and for comparator regions can provide useful insights.

How easy is it to pay taxes in economies in European Union (EU) - and what are the total tax and contribution rates

Payments (number per year)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Italy

Romania

Austria

Croatia

Belgium

Hungary

Denmark

Lithuania

Slovenia

France

Germany

Ireland

Netherlands

Spain

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

Greece

Malta

Portugal

Slovakia

Latvia

Poland

Sweden

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

28.2

20.6

16.5

14.4

10.3

10.3

23.0

16.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

12.0

12.0

11.0

11.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.0

6.0


Page 38

Paying Taxes

Time (hours per year)






Regional Average

OECD High Income

Bulgaria

Poland

Hungary

Portugal

Italy

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Germany

Croatia

Greece

Slovakia

Latvia

Romania

Spain

France

Malta

Belgium

Denmark

Austria

Sweden

Cyprus

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Lithuania

Finland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Estonia

0 100 200 300 400 500

317.1

213.1

202.6

173.0

171.5

158.8

441.0

334.0

277.0

243.0

238.0

233.0

230.0

218.0

206.0

193.0

192.0

169.0

163.0

143.0

139.0

139.0

136.0

132.0

131.0

122.0

120.0

119.0

114.0

95.0

90.0

82.0

55.0

50.0


Page 39

Paying Taxes

Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit)



OECD High Income

Regional Average




France

Italy

Belgium

Greece

Austria

Slovakia

Sweden

Germany

Estonia

Spain

Czech Republic

Malta

Lithuania

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Latvia

Hungary

Finland

Slovenia

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Ireland

Denmark

Cyprus

Croatia

Luxembourg

Romania

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

47.0

39.9

39.7

33.6

32.5

31.7

60.7

59.1

55.4

51.9

51.4

49.7

49.1

48.8

47.8

47.0

46.1

44.0

42.6

41.2

40.8

39.8

38.1

37.9

36.6

31.0

30.6

28.3

26.1

23.8

22.4

20.5

20.4

20.0


Page 40

Paying Taxes

Postfiling index (0-100)


OECD High Income

Regional Average





Estonia

Austria

Latvia

Germany

Lithuania

Spain

Ireland

Finland

Portugal

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Czech Republic

Denmark

Hungary

Slovakia

Luxembourg

Belgium

Slovenia

Poland

Romania

Greece

Cyprus

Bulgaria

United Kingdom

Croatia

Malta

Italy

0 20 40 60 80 100

86.7

84.3

68.2

56.4

53.3

47.5

99.4

98.5

98.1

97.7

97.5

93.6

93.4

93.1

92.7

92.4

92.0

90.7

90.5

89.1

87.5

87.2

83.8

83.5

80.0

77.4

76.8

76.7

74.5

71.2

71.0

66.7

52.5

52.4


Page 41

Trading across Borders

records the time and cost associated with the logistical process of exporting and importing goods. measures the time and cost (excludingtariffs) associated with three sets of procedures—documentary compliance, border compliance and domestic transport—within the overall process of exporting orimporting a shipment of goods. The most recent round of data collection for the project was completed in May 2019. .

Doing Business Doing Business

See the methodology for more information


Documentary compliance

Obtaining, preparing and submitting documents duringtransport, clearance, inspections and port or border handling inorigin economy

•

Obtaining, preparing and submitting documents required bydestination economy and any transit economies

•

Covers all documents required by law and in practice, includingelectronic submissions of information

•

Border compliance

Customs clearance and inspections•Inspections by other agencies (if applied to more than 20% ofshipments)

•

Handling and inspections that take place at the economy’s portor border

•

Domestic transport

Loading or unloading of the shipment at the warehouse orport/border

•

Transport between warehouse and port/border•Traffic delays and road police checks while shipment is enroute

•


To make the data comparable across economies, a few assumptions are made about the tradedgoods and the transactions:

Time is measured in hours, and 1 day is 24 hours (for example, 22 days are recorded as22×24=528 hours). If customs clearance takes 7.5 hours, the data are recorded as is. Alternatively,suppose documents are submitted to a customs agency at 8:00a.m., are processed overnight andcan be picked up at 8:00a.m. the next day. The time for customs clearance would be recorded as24 hours because the actual procedure took 24 hours.

Time:

Insurance cost and informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from thecosts recorded. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars. Contributors are asked to convert local currencyinto U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate prevailing on the day they answer the questionnaire.Contributors are private sector experts in international trade logistics and are informed aboutexchange rates.

Cost:

- For all 190 economies covered by , it is assumed a shipment is in a warehouse inthe largest business city of the exporting economy and travels to a warehouse in the largestbusiness city of the importing economy.- It is assumed each economy imports 15 metric tons of containerized auto parts (HS 8708) fromits natural import partner—the economy from which it imports the largest value (price timesquantity) of auto parts. It is assumed each economy exports the product of its comparativeadvantage (defined by the largest export value) to its natural export partner—the economy that isthe largest purchaser of this product. Shipment value is assumed to be $50,000.- The mode of transport is the one most widely used for the chosen export or import product andthe trading partner, as is the seaport or land border crossing.- All electronic information submissions requested by any government agency in connection withthe shipment are considered to be documents obtained, prepared and submitted during the exportor import process.- A port or border is a place (seaport or land border crossing) where merchandise can enter orleave an economy.- Relevant government agencies include customs, port authorities, road police, border guards,standardization agencies, ministries or departments of agriculture or industry, national securityagencies and any other government authorities.

Assumptions of the case study:Doing Business


Page 42

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/trading-across-borders


How easy it is for businesses in economies in European Union (EU) to export and import goods? The global rankings of these economies on the ease of trading acrossborders suggest an answer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of trading across borders


Austria (Rank 1)

Belgium (Rank 1)


Italy (Rank 1)


Portugal (Rank 1)

Romania (Rank 1)

Croatia (Rank 1)

Denmark (Rank 1)

France (Rank 1)

Hungary (Rank 1)

Luxembourg (Rank 1)

Poland (Rank 1)


Slovenia (Rank 1)

Spain (Rank 1)

Estonia (Rank 17)

Sweden (Rank 18)

Lithuania (Rank 19)

Bulgaria (Rank 21)

Latvia (Rank 28)


Greece (Rank 34)

Finland (Rank 37)

Germany (Rank 42)

Malta (Rank 48)

Cyprus (Rank 50)

Ireland (Rank 52)


80 85 90 95 100 105 110

Trading across Borders score

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

99.9

98.0

97.8

97.4

95.3

93.8

93.7

92.4

91.8

88.9

88.4

87.2

97.3


Page 43


The indicators reported here are for trading a shipment of goods by the most widely used mode of transport (whether sea or land or some combination of these). Theinformation on the time and cost to complete export and import is collected from local freight forwarders, customs brokers and traders. Comparing these indicators acrossthe region and with averages both for the region and for comparator regions can provide useful insights.

What it takes to trade across borders in economies in European Union (EU)

Time to export: Border compliance (hours)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Finland

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Latvia

Malta

United Kingdom

Cyprus

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Estonia

Sweden

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

France

Hungary

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

57.5

55.3

52.5

16.1

12.7

8.1

36.0

36.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

18.0

7.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 44


Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Malta

Germany

Ireland

Cyprus

Greece

United Kingdom

Finland

Latvia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Sweden

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

France

Hungary

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

516.3

441.8

381.1

150.0

136.8

86.8

370.0

345.0

305.0

300.0

300.0

280.0

213.0

150.0

58.0

55.0

55.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 45


Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Malta

United Kingdom

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Finland

Latvia

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

66.4

55.6

35.7

25.1

2.3

1.8

24.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0


Page 46


Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Ireland

Finland

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Germany

Sweden

Latvia

Greece

Lithuania

Malta

United Kingdom

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

France

Hungary

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

240.7

109.4

100.3

87.6

33.4

17.0

75.0

70.0

52.0

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

28.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 47


Time to import: Border compliance (hours)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Ireland

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Finland

Malta

Bulgaria

Greece

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

0 20 40 60 80 100

94.2

68.4

55.6

20.4

8.5

1.7

24.0

15.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 48


Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Cyprus

Ireland

Malta

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

628.4

512.5

422.8

158.8

98.1

29.2

335.0

253.0

230.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 49


Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

72.5

53.7

43.2

23.4

3.4

0.6

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0


Page 50


Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

Ireland

Cyprus

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

262.6

108.4

107.3

85.9

23.5

4.5

75.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 51

Enforcing Contracts

.

The enforcing contracts indicator measures the time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court, and the quality of judicial processesindex, evaluating whether each economy has adopted a series of good practices that promote quality and efficiency in the court system. The most recent round of datacollection was completed in May 2019. See the methodology for more information


Time required to enforce a contract through the courts(calendar days)

Time to file and serve the case•Time for trial and to obtain the judgment•Time to enforce the judgment•

Cost required to enforce a contract through the courts (% ofclaim value)

Average Attorney fees•Court costs•Enforcement costs•

Quality of judicial processes index (0-18)

Court structure and proceedings (-1-5)•Case management (0-6)•Court automation (0-4)•Alternative dispute resolution (0-3)•


The dispute in the case study involves the breach of a sales contract between two domesticbusinesses. The case study assumes that the court hears an expert on the quality of the goods indispute. This distinguishes the case from simple debt enforcement.

To make the data comparable across economies, uses several assumptions aboutthe case are used:- The dispute concerns a lawful transaction between two businesses (Seller and Buyer), bothlocated in the economy’s largest business city. For 11 economies the data are also collected for thesecond largest business city.- The Buyer orders custom-made furniture, then fails to pay alleging that the goods are not ofadequate quality.- The value of the dispute is 200% of the income per capita or the equivalent in local currency ofUSD 5,000, whichever is greater.- The Seller sues the Buyer before the court with jurisdiction over commercial cases worth 200% ofincome per capita or $5,000 whichever is greater.- The Seller requests the pretrial attachment of the defendant’s movable assets to secure theclaim.- The claim is disputed on the merits because of Buyer’s allegation that the quality of the goodswas not adequate.- The judge decides in favor of the seller; there is no appeal.- The Seller enforces the judgment through a public sale of the Buyer’s movable assets.

Doing Business


Page 52

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/enforcing-contracts

Enforcing Contracts

How efficent is the process of resolving a commercial dispute through the courts in economies in European Union (EU)? The global rankings of these economies on theease of enforcing contracts suggest an answer.The averge ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a userful benchmark.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of enforcing contracts.


Lithuania (Rank 7)

Estonia (Rank 8)

Austria (Rank 10)

Germany (Rank 13)

Denmark (Rank 14)

Latvia (Rank 15)

France (Rank 16)


Romania (Rank 19)

Hungary (Rank 25)

Spain (Rank 26)

Croatia (Rank 27)


Portugal (Rank 38)

Sweden (Rank 39)

Malta (Rank 41)

Bulgaria (Rank 42)

Finland (Rank 45)


Poland (Rank 55)

Belgium (Rank 56)


Ireland (Rank 91)


Slovenia (Rank 112)

Italy (Rank 122)

Cyprus (Rank 142)

Greece (Rank 146)

Regional Average (Rank 50.0)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Enforcing Contracts score

78.8

76.1

75.5

74.1

73.9

73.5

73.5

73.3

72.2

71.0

70.9

70.6

68.7

67.9

67.6

67.6

67.0

66.4

66.1

64.4

64.3

59.9

57.9

56.4

54.8

53.1

48.6

48.1

66.5


Page 53

Enforcing Contracts

The indicators underlying the rankings may also be revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show what it takes to enforce a contract through the courts in eacheconomy in the region: the time, the cost and quality of judicial processes index. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region andfor comparator regions can provide useful insights.

What it takes to enforce a contract through the courts in economies in European Union (EU)

Time (days)



Regional Average


OECD High Income



Greece

Slovenia

Italy

Cyprus

Slovakia

Portugal

Poland

Czech Republic

Croatia

Ireland

Hungary

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Romania

Spain

Belgium

Malta

Germany

Denmark

Finland

Sweden

Latvia

Estonia

France

United Kingdom

Austria

Lithuania

Luxembourg

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

774.2

637.4

622.0

589.6

581.1

496.4

1711.0

1160.0

1120.0

1100.0

775.0

755.0

685.0

678.0

650.0

650.0

605.0

564.0

514.0

512.0

510.0

505.0

505.0

499.0

485.0

485.0

483.0

469.0

455.0

447.0

437.0

397.0

370.0

321.0


Page 54

Enforcing Contracts

Cost (% of claim value)






OECD High Income

Regional Average

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Sweden

Italy

Ireland

Romania

Netherlands

Lithuania

Denmark

Latvia

Greece

Malta

Austria

Slovakia

Poland

Bulgaria

Belgium

France

Estonia

Portugal

Spain

Cyprus

Finland

Croatia

Hungary

Germany

Slovenia

Luxembourg

0 10 20 30 40 50

47.2

32.0

26.6

24.7

21.5

21.2

45.7

33.8

30.4

27.6

26.9

25.8

23.9

23.6

23.3

23.1

22.4

21.5

20.6

20.5

19.4

18.6

18.0

17.4

17.3

17.2

17.2

16.4

16.2

15.2

15.0

14.4

12.7

9.7


Page 55

Enforcing Contracts

Quality of judicial processes index (0-18)


OECD High Income

Regional Average





Lithuania

United Kingdom

Denmark

Romania

Estonia

Latvia

Portugal

Slovakia

Austria

Croatia

Italy

Germany

Greece

Hungary

France

Sweden

Slovenia

Spain

Poland

Bulgaria

Malta

Czech Republic

Finland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Belgium

Cyprus

Netherlands

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

11.7

11.6

10.3

8.8

8.1

6.6

15.0

15.0

14.0

14.0

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.0

13.0

13.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

12.0

12.0

11.5

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.5

9.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.0

8.0

7.0


Page 56

Resolving Insolvency

studies the time, cost and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic legal entities. These variables are used to calculate the recovery rate,which is recorded as cents on the dollar recovered by secured creditors through reorganization, liquidation or debt enforcement (foreclosure or receivership) proceedings.To determine the present value of the amount recovered by creditors, uses the lending rates from the International Monetary Fund, supplemented withdata from central banks and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The most recent round of data collection was completed in May 2019.

.

Doing Business

Doing BusinessSee the methodology for more

information


Time required to recover debt (years)

Measured in calendar years•Appeals and requests for extension are included•

Cost required to recover debt (% of debtor’s estate)

Measured as percentage of estate value•Court fees•Fees of insolvency administrators•Lawyers’ fees•Assessors’ and auctioneers’ fees•Other related fees•

Outcome

Whether business continues operating as a going concern orbusiness assets are sold piecemeal

•

Recovery rate for creditors

Measures the cents on the dollar recovered by securedcreditors

•

Outcome for the business (survival or not) determines themaximum value that can be recovered

•

Official costs of the insolvency proceedings are deducted•Depreciation of furniture is taken into account•Present value of debt recovered•

Strength of insolvency framework index (0- 16)

Sum of the scores of four component indices:•Commencement of proceedings index (0-3)•Management of debtor’s assets index (0-6)•Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)•Creditor participation index (0-4)•


To make the data on the time, cost and outcome comparable across economies, severalassumptions about the business and the case are used:

- A hotel located in the largest city (or cities) has 201 employees and 50 suppliers. The hotelexperiences financial difficulties.- The value of the hotel is 100% of the income per capita or the equivalent in local currency of USD200,000, whichever is greater.- The hotel has a loan from a domestic bank, secured by a mortgage over the hotel’s real estate.The hotel cannot pay back the loan, but makes enough money to operate otherwise.

In addition, evaluates the quality of legal framework applicable to judicialliquidation and reorganization proceedings and the extent to which best insolvency practices havebeen implemented in each economy covered.

Doing Business


Page 57

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/resolving-insolvency

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/resolving-insolvency


How efficient are insolvency proceedings in economies in European Union (EU)? The global rankings of these economies on the ease of resolving insolvency suggest ananswer. The average ranking of the region and comparator regions provide a useful benchmark for assessing the efficiency of insolvency proceedings. Speed, low costsand continuation of viable businesses characterize the top performing economies.


How economies in European Union (EU) rank on the ease of resolving insolvency


Finland (Rank 1)

Germany (Rank 4)

Denmark (Rank 6)


Slovenia (Rank 8)

Belgium (Rank 9)


Portugal (Rank 15)


Sweden (Rank 17)

Spain (Rank 18)

Ireland (Rank 19)

Italy (Rank 21)

Austria (Rank 22)

Poland (Rank 25)

France (Rank 26)

Cyprus (Rank 31)


Estonia (Rank 54)

Latvia (Rank 55)

Romania (Rank 56)

Bulgaria (Rank 61)

Croatia (Rank 63)

Hungary (Rank 66)

Greece (Rank 72)

Lithuania (Rank 89)


Malta (Rank 121)

Regional Average (Rank 37.00)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Resolving Insolvency score

92.7

89.8

85.1

84.4

84.4

84.1

80.3

80.2

80.1

79.5

79.2

79.2

77.5

77.4

76.5

74.6

72.5

65.5

60.1

59.8

59.1

57.8

56.5

55.0

53.1

46.7

45.5

38.3

70.5


Page 58


The indicators underlying the rankings may be more revealing. Data collected by Doing Business show the average recovery rate and the average strength of insolvencyframework index. Comparing these indicators across the region and with averages both for the region and for comparator regions can provide useful insights.

How efficient is the insolvency process in economies in European Union (EU)

Recovery rate (cents on the dollar)


OECD High Income

Regional Average





Netherlands

Slovenia

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

Ireland

United Kingdom

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Spain

France

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Italy

Portugal

Poland

Slovakia

Hungary

Luxembourg

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Bulgaria

Estonia

Croatia

Romania

Greece

0 20 40 60 80 100

70.2

63.2

38.5

35.5

31.2

27.3

90.1

90.0

89.4

88.5

88.0

86.1

85.4

79.9

79.8

78.1

77.5

74.8

73.8

67.5

65.6

64.8

60.9

46.1

44.2

43.9

41.4

40.3

39.2

37.7

36.1

35.2

34.4

32.0


Page 59

Employing Workers

presents detailed data for the employing workers indicators on the website ( ). The study does not presentrankings of economies on these indicators or include the topic in the aggregate ease of doing business score or ranking on the ease of doing business.Doing Business Doing Business http://www.doingbusiness.org

The most recent round of data collection was completed in May 2019. .See the methodology for more information


(i) whether fixed-term contracts are prohibited for permanenttasks; (ii) maximum cumulative duration of fixed-term contracts;(iii) length of the maximum probationary period; (iv) minimumwage;(v) ratio of minimum wage to the average value added perworker.

Hiring

(i) maximum number of working days allowed per week; (ii)premiums for work: at night, on a weekly rest day and overtime;(iii) whether there are restrictions on work at night, work on aweekly rest day and for overtime work; (iv) length of paid annualleave.

Working hours

(i) whether redundancy can be basis for terminating workers; (ii)whether employer needs to notify and/or get approval from thirdparty to terminate 1 redundant worker and a group of 9 redundantworkers; (iii) whether the law requires employer to reassign orretrain a worker before making worker redundant; (iv) whetherpriority rules apply for redundancies and reemployment.

Redundancy rules

(i) notice period for redundancy dismissal; (ii) severancepayments, and (iii) penalties due when terminating a redundantworker. Data on the availability of unemployment protection for aworker with one year of employment is also collected.

Redundancy cost


To make the data comparable across economies, several assumptions about the worker and thebusiness are used.

- Is a cashier in a supermarket or grocery store, age 19, with one year of work experience.- Is a full-time employee.- Is not a member of the labor union, unless membership is mandatory.

The worker:

- Is a limited liability company (or the equivalent in the economy).- Operates a supermarket or grocery store in the economy’s largest business city. For 11economies the data are also collected for the second largest business city.- Has 60 employees.- Is subject to collective bargaining agreements if such agreements cover more than 50% of thefood retail sector and they apply even to firms that are not party to them.- Abides by every law and regulation but does not grant workers more benefits than thosemandated by law, regulation or (if applicable) collective bargaining agreements.

The business:


Page 60

http://www.doingbusiness.org/

http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/methodology/labor-market-regulation

Business Reforms in European Union (EU)

From May 2, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 115 economies implemented 294 business regulatory reforms across the 10 areas measured by Doing Business. Reforms inspired byhave been implemented by economies in all regions. The following are reforms implemented in since 2011.Doing Business European Union (EU) Doing Business

= reform making it easier to do business. = Change making it more difficult to do business.Doing Business

Starting a Business

DB Year Economy Reform

DB2020 Belgium Belgium made starting a business easier by eliminating the paid-in minimum capital requirement.

DB2020 Croatia Croatia made starting a business easier by abolishing the requirements to reserve the company name andobtain director signatures for company registration, and by reducing the paid-in minimum capitalrequirement.

DB2020 Cyprus Cyprus made starting a business less expensive by reducing the cost to register a company.

DB2020 Finland Finland made starting a business easier by reducing the fee and processing time of online businessregistrations.

DB2020 Greece Greece made starting a business easier by reducing the time to register a company with the commercialregistry and removing the requirement to obtain a tax clearance.

DB2020 Malta Malta made starting a business easier by implementing an online one-stop-shop for registration ofemployer, employees and value added tax.

DB2020 Romania Romania made starting a business easier by allowing voluntary value added tax registration, which is lesstime consuming than mandatory registration.

DB2020 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made starting a business easier by abolishing the requirement to obtain and submitinformation on tax arrears.

DB2019 Romania Romania made starting a business more complicated by introducing fiscal risk assessment criteria forvalue added tax applications, thereby increasing the time required to register as a value added tax payer.

DB2019 Slovenia Slovenia made starting a business more complicated by requiring companies to report their beneficialownership separately from business incorporation.

DB2018 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made starting a business less expensive by introducing lower fees for simple limitedliability companies.

DB2018 Greece Greece made starting a business easier by creating a unified social security institution.

DB2018 Malta Malta made starting a business easier by removing the requirement for a trading license for generalcommercial activities.

DB2017 Croatia Croatia made starting a business more difficult by increasing notary fees.

DB2017 Cyprus Cyprus made starting a business easier by merging the procedures to register for taxes and for VAT whilemaking name search and reservation faster.

DB2017 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made starting a business easier by reducing the cost and the time required to registera company in commercial courts by allowing notaries to directly register companies through an onlinesystem.

DB2017 Ireland Ireland made starting a business easier by removing the requirement that a founder seeking to incorporatea company swear before a commissioner of oaths.

DB2017 Malta Malta simplified the process of starting a business by reducing the time needed to register a company.

DB2017 Romania Romania made starting a business more difficult by increasing the time to register for Value Added Tax.

DB2016 Denmark Denmark made starting a business easier by introducing an online platform allowing simultaneouscompletion of business and tax registration.

DB2016 Estonia Estonia made starting a business simpler by allowing minimum capital to be deposited at the time ofcompany registration.

DB2016 Germany Germany made starting a business easier by making the process more efficient and less costly.

DB2016 Lithuania Lithuania made starting a business easier by introducing online VAT registration.


Page 61

DB2016 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic simplified the process of starting a business by introducing court registration at theone-stop shop.

DB2016 Sweden Sweden made starting a business easier by requiring the company registry to register a company in fivedays.

DB2015 Austria Austria made starting a business easier by reducing the minimum capital requirement, which in turnreduced the paid-in minimum capital requirement, and by lowering notary fees.

DB2015 Bulgaria Bulgaria made starting a business easier by lowering registration fees.

DB2015 Croatia Croatia made starting a business easier by reducing notary fees.

DB2015 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made starting a business easier by substantially reducing the minimum capitalrequirement and the paid-in minimum capital requirement.

DB2015 Denmark Denmark made starting a business easier by reducing the paid-in minimum capital requirement.

DB2015 France France made starting a business easier by reducing the time it takes to register a company at the one-stopshop (Centre de Formalités des Entreprises).

DB2015 Germany Germany made starting a business more difficult by increasing notary fees.

DB2015 Greece Greece made starting a business easier by lowering registration costs.

DB2015 Hungary Hungary made starting a business more difficult by increasing the paid-in minimum capital requirement.

DB2015 Italy Italy made starting a business easier by reducing both the minimum capital requirement and the paid-inminimum capital requirement and by streamlining registration procedures.

DB2015 Latvia Latvia made starting a business more difficult by increasing registration fees, bank fees and notary fees.

DB2015 Lithuania Lithuania made starting a business easier by eliminating the need to have a company seal and speedingup the value added tax (VAT) registration at the State Tax Inspectorate.

DB2015 Malta Malta made starting a business easier by creating an electronic link between the Registrar of Companiesand the Inland Revenue Department to facilitate issuance of a tax identification number.

DB2015 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made starting a business easier by reducing the time needed to register with thedistrict court and eliminating the need (and therefore the fee) for the verification of signatures by a notarypublic.

DB2015 Spain Spain made starting a business easier by introducing an electronic system linking several public agenciesand thereby simplifying business registration.

DB2015 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made starting a business easier by speeding up tax registration.

DB2014 Greece Greece made starting a business easier by introducing a simpler form of limited liability company andabolishing the minimum capital requirement for such companies.

DB2014 Latvia Latvia made starting a business easier by making it possible to file the applications for companyregistration and value added tax registration simultaneously at the commercial registry.

DB2014 Netherlands The Netherlands made starting a business easier by abolishing the minimum capital requirement.

DB2014 Poland Poland made starting a business easier by eliminating the requirement to register the new company at theNational Labor Inspectorate and the National Sanitary Inspectorate.

DB2014 Portugal Portugal made starting a business easier by eliminating the requirement to report to the Ministry of Labor.

DB2014 Romania Romania made starting a business easier by transferring responsibility for issuing the headquartersclearance certificate from the Fiscal Administration Office to the Trade Registry.

DB2014 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made starting a business more difficult by adding a new procedure for establishing alimited liability company.

DB2014 Spain Spain made starting a business easier by eliminating the requirement to obtain a municipal license beforestarting operations and by improving the efficiency of the commercial registry.

DB2014 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made starting a business easier by providing model articles for use in preparingmemorandums and articles of association.

DB2013 Bulgaria Bulgaria made starting a business easier by reducing the cost of registration.


Page 62


DB2013 Hungary Hungary made starting a business more complex by increasing the registration fees for limited liabilitycompanies and adding a new tax registration at the time of incorporation and enforcing a requirement formandatory registration with the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

DB2013 Ireland Ireland made starting a business easier by introducing a new online facility for business registration.

DB2013 Lithuania Lithuania made starting a business easier by introducing online registration for limited liability companiesand eliminating the notarization requirement for incorporation documents.

DB2013 Netherlands The Netherlands made starting a business easier by eliminating the requirement for a declaration ofnonobjection by the Ministry of Justice before incorporation.

DB2013 Romania Romania made starting a business easier by reducing the time required to obtain a clearance certificatefrom the fiscal administration agency.

DB2013 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made starting a business easier by speeding up the processing of applications at theone-stop shop for trading licenses, income tax registration and health insurance registration.

DB2012 Greece Greece made starting a business easier by implementing an electronic platform that interconnects severalgovernment agencies.

DB2012 Latvia Latvia made starting a business easier by reducing the minimum capital requirement and introducing acommon application for value added tax and company registration.

DB2012 Portugal Portugal made starting a business easier by allowing company founders to choose the amount of minimumcapital and make their paid-in capital contribution up to 1 year after the company’s creation, and byeliminating the stamp tax on company’s share capital subscriptions.

DB2012 Romania Romania made starting a business more difficult by requiring a tax clearance certificate for a newcompany’s headquarters before company registration.

DB2012 Spain Spain eased the process of starting a business by reducing the cost to start a business and decreasing theminimum capital requirement.

DB2011 Bulgaria Bulgaria eased business start-up by reducing the minimum capital requirement from 5,000 leva ($3,250) to2 leva ($1.30).

DB2011 Croatia Croatia eased business start-up by allowing limited liability companies to file their registration applicationwith the court registries electronically through the notary public.

DB2011 Denmark Denmark eased business start-up by reducing the minimum capital requirement for limited liabilitycompanies from 125,000 Danish kroner ($22,850) to 80,000 Danish kroner ($14,620).

DB2011 Germany Germany eased business start-up by increasing the efficiency of communications between the notary andthe commercial registry and eliminating the need to publish an announcement in a newspaper.

DB2011 Italy Italy made starting a business easier by enhancing an online registration system.

DB2011 Lithuania Lithuania tightened the time limit for completing the registration of a company.

DB2011 Luxembourg Luxembourg eased business start-up by speeding up the delivery of the business license.

DB2011 Slovenia Slovenia made starting a business easier through improvements to its one-stop shop that allowed moreonline services.

DB2011 Sweden Sweden cut the minimum capital requirement for limited liability companies by half, making it easier to starta business.


DB2020 Croatia Croatia made dealing with construction permits less costly by reducing the water contribution for building awarehouse.

DB2020 Denmark Denmark made dealing with construction permits cheaper by eliminating fees for building permits.

DB2019 Greece Greece streamlined its construction permitting process as building owners must now use their in-houseengineer for the intermediate inspection, as opposed to the municipality.

DB2019 Malta Malta made dealing with construction permits easier by streamlining the process of obtaining a buildingpermit. On the other hand, the time to issue building permits has increased.


Page 63

Getting Electricity

DB2018 Croatia Croatia made dealing with construction permits more costly by increasing the administrative fees forbuilding and occupancy permits.

DB2018 Denmark Denmark made dealing with construction permits more expensive by raising the cost of building permitsand the cost of obtaining a water and sewage connection.

DB2018 Lithuania Lithuania made dealing with construction permits easier by reducing the time needed to obtain technicalconditions and the building permit.

DB2017 France France made dealing with construction permits less expensive by reducing the cost of obtaining a buildingpermit

DB2017 Poland Poland made dealing with construction permits simpler by streamlining the process of obtaining a buildingpermit.

DB2016 Latvia Latvia made dealing with construction permits more time-consuming by increasing the time required toobtain a building permit—despite having streamlined the process by having the building permit issuedtogether with the architectural planning conditions.

DB2015 Croatia Croatia made dealing with construction permits easier by reducing the requirements and fees for buildingpermits and carrying out the final building inspection more promptly.

DB2015 Lithuania Lithuania made dealing with construction permits easier by reducing the time required for processingbuilding permit applications.

DB2014 Denmark Denmark made dealing with construction permits more costly by increasing the fee for building permits.

DB2014 Latvia Latvia made dealing with construction permits easier by introducing new time limits for issuing a buildingpermit and by eliminating the Public Health Agency’s role in approving building permits and conductinginspections.

DB2014 Malta Malta made dealing with construction permits less costly by significantly reducing the building permit fees.

DB2014 Poland Poland made dealing with construction permits easier by eliminating the requirement to obtain adescription of the geotechnical documentation of the land.

DB2014 Slovenia Slovenia made dealing with construction permits easier by eliminating the requirement to obtain projectconditions from the water and sewerage provider.

DB2013 Greece Greece reduced the time required to obtain a construction permit by introducing strict time limits forprocessing permit applications at the municipality.

DB2013 Netherlands The Netherlands made dealing with construction permits simpler by merging several approvals andimplementing an online application system.

DB2013 Portugal Portugal made obtaining construction permits easier by implementing strict time limits to process urbanprojects and simplifying the associated procedures.

DB2012 Portugal Portugal made dealing with construction permits easier by streamlining its inspection system.

DB2012 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made dealing with construction permits easier by increasing efficiency in the issuanceof planning permits.

DB2011 Croatia Croatia replaced the location permit and project design confirmation with a single certificate, simplifyingand speeding up the construction permitting process.

DB2011 Estonia Estonia made dealing with construction permits more complex by increasing the time for obtaining designcriteria from the municipality.

DB2011 Hungary Hungary implemented a time limit for the issuance of building permits.

DB2011 Portugal Portugal made it easier dealing with construction permits by implementing the 95 day time limit for theapproval of project designs.

DB2011 Romania Romania amended regulations related to construction permitting to reduce fees and expedite the process.


DB2020 Lithuania Lithuania made getting electricity easier by launching an integrated digital application and by reducing thecost of new connections.


Page 64


DB2020 Malta Malta increased the reliability of power supply by upgrading its power grid infrastructure and launching anetwork planning and operations control center.

DB2020 Poland Poland made getting electricity faster by implementing a new customer service platform that allows theutility to better track applications for new commercial connections.

DB2019 Belgium Belgium made the process of getting electricity faster by improving access to information about theconnection process and reducing the time for connection works.

DB2019 France France made getting electricity easier by streamlining the application process and reducing the time for theexternal works.

DB2019 Greece Greece made the process of getting electricity easier by eliminating the requirement for customersapplying for a connection to certify the electrician’s sworn statement on internal wiring.

DB2019 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made getting electricity faster by implementing several initiatives to expedite theexternal connection works performed by sub-contractors.

DB2018 Croatia Croatia improved the reliability of power supply by introducing financial deterrence mechanisms aimed atlimiting power outages.

DB2018 Italy Italy made getting electricity easier by streamlining the application process and reducing the time for theexternal works and meter installation.

DB2018 Lithuania Lithuania made getting electricity easier by streamlining procedures and imposing deadlines for issuinginternal wiring inspection certificates.

DB2017 Bulgaria Bulgaria increased the reliability of power supply by implementing an automatic energy managementsystem, the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), to monitor outages and servicerestoration.

DB2017 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made getting electricity faster by designating personnel to deal with all incomingconnection applications.

DB2017 Lithuania Lithuania made getting electricity faster by introducing time limits on the utility to conduct necessaryconnection procedures and lowering the connection tariff.

DB2017 Poland Poland made getting an electricity connection faster by eliminating the need to secure an excavationpermit for external connection works, which reduced the time of mentioned works.

DB2017 Portugal Portugal made getting an electricity connection faster by reducing the time required to approve electricalconnection requests.

DB2017 Spain Spain made getting electricity easier by upgrading Madrid’s electrical grid, thereby allowing morecustomers to connect to the low-voltage network. Furthermore, the approval process to obtain a newcommercial connection was streamlined.

DB2016 Cyprus The utility in Cyprus made getting electricity easier by reducing the time required for obtaining a newconnection.

DB2016 Lithuania The utility in Lithuania has reduced the time of the connection works by enforcing the legal time limit toperform the external connection works.

DB2016 Malta The utility in Malta reduced the time required for getting an electricity connection by improving itssupervision of trenching works.

DB2016 Poland The utility in Poland reduced delays in processing applications for new electricity connections byincreasing human and capital resources and by enforcing service delivery timelines.

DB2015 Poland Poland made getting electricity less costly by revising the fee structure for new connections.

DB2013 Italy Italy made getting electricity easier and less costly by improving the efficiency of the utility AceaDistribuzione and reducing connection fees.

DB2012 Latvia Latvia made getting electricity faster by introducing a simplified process for approval of external connectiondesigns.



Page 65

DB2020 Croatia Croatia made it easier to transfer property by decreasing the real estate transfer tax and by reducing thetime to register property title transfers.

DB2020 Poland Poland made transferring property more difficult by increasing the time needed to apply for registration atthe Land and Mortgage Registry.

DB2019 Croatia Croatia made transferring property more efficient by digitizing its land registry.

DB2019 France France made registering property easier by implementing an electronic registration system and improvingefficiency at the land registry.

DB2019 Greece Greece made registering property more burdensome by requiring a property tax certificate for registering aproperty transfer.

DB2019 Ireland Ireland made property registration more costly by increasing the stamp duty on a non-residential propertytransfer.

DB2019 Latvia Latvia made property transfer less transparent by not publishing statistical data on the number of landdisputes for 2017.

DB2019 Poland Poland made transferring property more difficult by increasing the time to apply for registration at the Landand Mortgage Registry of the relevant court.

DB2019 Portugal Portugal made registering property more burdensome by reducing the number of officials that can registerproperty transfers.

DB2018 Croatia Croatia made it less costly to transfer property by lowering the real estate transfer tax.

DB2018 Cyprus Cyprus made registering property easier by decreasing the Immovable Property Tax.

DB2018 Romania Romania improved the quality of land administration by digitizing ownership and land records.

DB2017 France France made transferring property more expensive by increasing property transfer tax rate and introducingan additional tax for businesses in Paris.

DB2017 Sweden Sweden made it easier to transfer a property by increasing administrative efficiency and introducing anindependent and separate mechanism for reporting errors on maps.

DB2016 Belgium Belgium made transferring property easier by introducing electronic property registration.

DB2016 Latvia Latvia made transferring property easier by introducing a new application form for transfers.

DB2016 Malta Malta made the transfer of a property more expensive by introducing the new property transfer tax.

DB2015 Germany Germany made it more expensive to register property by increasing the property transfer tax.

DB2015 Greece Greece made it easier to transfer property by reducing the property transfer tax and removing therequirement for the municipal tax clearance certificate.

DB2015 Ireland Ireland made transferring property easier by enhancing its computerized system at the land registry andimplementing an online system for the registration of title.

DB2015 Poland Poland made transferring property easier by introducing online procedures and reducing notary fees.

DB2015 Spain Spain made transferring property easier by reducing the property transfer tax rate.

DB2015 Sweden Sweden made registering property easier by fully implementing a new system for property registration.

DB2014 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made transferring property more costly by increasing the property transfer tax rate.

DB2014 France France made transferring property easier by speeding up the registration of the deed of sale at the landregistry.

DB2014 Italy Italy made transferring property easier by eliminating the requirement for an energy performance certificatefor commercial buildings with no heating system.

DB2014 Netherlands The Netherlands made transferring property easier by increasing the efficiency of the title search process.

DB2014 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made transferring property easier by introducing electronic lodgment for propertytransfer applications.

DB2013 Cyprus Cyprus made property transfers faster by computerizing its land registry.


Page 66

Getting Credit

DB2013 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made registering property easier by allowing the cadastral office online access to thecommercial registry’s database and thus eliminating the need to obtain a paper certificate from the registrybefore applying for registration at the cadastre.

DB2013 Denmark Denmark made registering property easier by introducing electronic submission of property transferapplications at the land registry.

DB2013 Ireland Ireland made property transfers less costly by introducing a single stamp duty rate for transfers ofnonresidential property. It also extended compulsory registration to all property in Ireland.

DB2013 Italy Italy made transferring property easier by digitizing cadastral maps of properties and making the mapsavailable to notaries online.

DB2013 Poland Poland made property registration faster by introducing a new caseload management system for the landand mortgage registries and by continuing to digitize the records of the registries.

DB2013 Sweden In Sweden property transfers became more time consuming during implementation of a new informationtechnology system at the land registry.

DB2012 Belgium Belgium made property registration quicker for entrepreneurs by setting time limits and implementing its “e-notariat” system.

DB2012 Czech Republic The Czech Republic speeded up property registration by computerizing its cadastral office, digitizing all itsdata and introducing electronic communications with notaries.

DB2012 Latvia Latvia made transferring property easier by allowing electronic access to municipal tax databases thatshow the tax status of property, eliminating the requirement to obtain this information in paper format.

DB2012 Slovenia Slovenia made transferring property easier and less costly by introducing online procedures and reducingfees.

DB2012 Sweden Sweden increased the cost of transferring property between companies.

DB2011 Austria Austria made it easier to transfer property by requiring online submission of all applications to registerproperty transfers.

DB2011 Belgium Belgium’s capital city, Brussels, made it more difficult to transfer property by requiring a clean-soilcertificate.

DB2011 Denmark Computerization of Denmark’s land registry cut the number of procedures required to register property byhalf.

DB2011 Greece Greece made transferring property more costly by increasing the transfer tax from 1% of the property valueto 10%. Greece made registering property more difficult by increasing the time needed to transfer andregister property.

DB2011 Hungary Hungary reduced the property registration fee by 6% of the property value.

DB2011 Poland Poland eased property registration by computerizing its land registry.

DB2011 Portugal Portugal established a one-stop shop for property registration.

DB2011 Slovenia Greater computerization in Slovenia’s land registry reduced delays in property registration by 75%.

DB2011 Sweden Sweden made registering property easier by eliminating the requirement to obtain a preemption waiverfrom the municipality


DB2020 Croatia Croatia made accessing credit information more difficult by ending the distribution of individual credit data.

DB2019 Belgium Belgium strengthened access to credit by implementing a new Pledge Law which allowed security interestto automatically attach to the proceeds of the original asset, and out of court enforcement of the securityinterest. Belgium also established a unified and modern collateral registry.

DB2019 Ireland Ireland improved access to credit information by establishing a new credit registry.

DB2018 Hungary Hungary improved access to credit information by offering commercial credit scores.


Page 67


DB2018 Netherlands The Netherlands improved access to credit information by lowering the minimum loan amount to beincluded in the credit bureau’s database.

DB2018 Slovenia Slovenia improved access to credit information by reporting both positive and negative data on consumersand commercial borrowers.

DB2017 Cyprus Cyprus made access to credit information more difficult by stopping the distribution of historical credit data.

DB2017 Latvia Latvia improved access to credit information by launching a private credit bureau.

DB2017 Malta Malta improved access to credit information by launching a new credit registry.

DB2016 Cyprus Cyprus improved access to credit information by allowing credit bureaus to collect and report positivecredit information and to report credit histories for both borrowers and guarantors.

DB2016 Latvia Latvia improved its credit information system through a new law governing the licensing and functioning ofcredit bureaus.

DB2016 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic improved access to credit information by reporting data on credit payments fromautomobile retailers.

DB2015 Cyprus Cyprus improved its credit information system by adopting a central bank directive eliminating theminimum threshold for loans to be included in credit bureaus’ databases.

DB2015 Czech Republic The Czech Republic improved access to credit by adopting a new legal regime on secured transactionsthat allows the registration of receivables at the collateral registry and permits out-of-court enforcement ofcollateral.

DB2015 Hungary Hungary improved access to credit by adopting a new legal regime on secured transactions thatimplements a functional approach to secured transactions, extends security interests to the products andproceeds of the original asset, and establishes a unified, and notice-based collateral registry.

DB2015 Ireland Ireland improved its credit information system by passing a new act that provides for the establishment andoperation of a credit registry.

DB2015 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic improved its credit information system by implementing a new law on the protectionof personal data.

DB2014 Latvia Latvia improved its credit information system by adopting a new law regulating the public credit registry.

DB2014 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened its secured transactions system by broadening the range of movable assets thatcan be used as collateral, allowing a general description in the security agreement of the assets pledgedas collateral and permitting out-of-court enforcement.

DB2014 Netherlands The Netherlands weakened its secured transactions system through an amendment to the Collection ofState Taxes Act that grants priority outside bankruptcy to tax claims over secured creditors’ claims.

DB2013 Hungary Hungary improved access to credit information by passing its first credit bureau law mandating the creationof a database with positive credit information on individuals.

DB2013 Romania Romania strengthened its legal framework for secured transactions by allowing the automatic extension ofsecurity interests to the products, proceeds and replacement of collateral.

DB2012 Bulgaria Bulgaria made access to credit information more difficult by stopping the distribution of credit reports tofinancial institutions by the private credit bureau (Experian).

DB2012 Croatia In Croatia the private credit bureau started to collect and distribute information on firms, improving thecredit information system.

DB2012 Hungary Hungary reduced the amount of credit information available from private credit bureaus by shortening theperiod for retaining data on defaults and late payments (if repaid) from 5 years to 1 year.

DB2012 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic improved its credit information system by guaranteeing by law the right of borrowersto inspect their own data.

DB2011 Cyprus Cyprus improved access to credit information by establishing its first private credit bureau.

DB2011 Estonia Estonia improved access to credit by amending the Code of Enforcement Procedure and allowing out-of-court enforcement of collateral by secured creditors.

DB2011 Lithuania Lithuania’s private credit bureau now collects and distributes positive information on borrowers.


Page 68

Paying Taxes


DB2020 Greece Greece strengthened minority investor protections by requiring greater disclosure and an independentreview before the approval of related-party transactions as well as greater corporate transparency ofexecutive compensation.

DB2020 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened minority investor protections by clarifying ownership and control structures.

DB2020 Spain Spain strengthened minority investor protections by clarifying ownership and control structures.

DB2019 Cyprus Cyprus strengthened minority investor protections by increasing disclosure of related-party transactionsand strengthening shareholders’ rights and role in major corporate decisions.

DB2019 Hungary Hungary strengthened minority investors protections by allowing parties to pose questions to defendantsand witnesses during trial after obtaining the judge's approval.

DB2019 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened minority investor protections by introducing greater requirements for the disclosureof the compensation of directors and other high-ranking officers on an individual basis.

DB2018 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened minority investor protections by increasing corporate transparency.

DB2018 Luxembourg Luxembourg strengthened minority investor protections by making it easier to sue directors in case ofprejudicial related-party transactions and increasing access to corporate information.

DB2017 Croatia Croatia strengthened minority investor protections by requiring detailed internal disclosure of conflicts ofinterest by directors.

DB2016 Ireland Ireland strengthened minority investor protections by introducing provisions stipulating that directors canbe held liable for breach of their fiduciary duties.

DB2016 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened minority investor protections by prohibiting subsidiaries from acquiring sharesissued by their parent company.

DB2016 Spain Spain strengthened minority investor protections by requiring that major sales of company assets besubject to shareholder approval.

DB2014 Greece Greece strengthened investor protections by introducing a requirement for director approval of related-party transactions.

DB2013 Greece Greece strengthened investor protections by requiring greater immediate and annual disclosure of materialrelated-party transactions.

DB2013 Netherlands The Netherlands strengthened investor protections through a new law regulating the approval of related-party transactions.

DB2013 Slovenia Slovenia strengthened investor protections through a new law regulating the approval of related-partytransactions.

DB2012 Cyprus Cyprus strengthened investor protections by requiring greater corporate disclosure to the board ofdirectors, to the public and in the annual report.

DB2012 Lithuania Lithuania strengthened investor protections by introducing greater requirements for corporate disclosure tothe public and in the annual report.

DB2011 Sweden Sweden strengthened investor protections by requiring greater corporate disclosure and regulating theapproval of transactions between interested parties.


DB2020 Belgium Belgium made paying taxes less costly by reducing the corporate income tax rate, increasing the notionalinterest deduction rate and decreasing the rates for social security contributions paid by employers.

DB2020 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes easier by implementing an online system for filing and paying mandatory laborcontributions.

DB2020 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes easier by upgrading the internal electronic tax system. Hungary also madepaying taxes less costly by reducing the social tax rate paid by the employer.


Page 69

DB2020 Latvia Latvia made paying taxes costlier by increasing the effective corporate income tax burden. The newcalculations replaced the corporate income tax paid on the taxable profits of companies with an income taxbased on distributed profits.

DB2020 Romania Romania made paying taxes less costly by eliminating five employer-paid taxes and contributions. At thesame time, Romania introduced a new work insurance contribution paid by the employer.

DB2020 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made paying taxes more difficult by introducing a new pension scheme paid by theemployer.

DB2019 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes easier by abolishing the immovable property tax, discontinuing the specialcontribution for private sector employees, private sector pensioners and self-employed individuals,introducing an online system for filing value added tax returns and value added tax refund claims andreducing the sewerage duty tax rates.

DB2019 Finland Finland made paying taxes less costly by reducing the labor contribution rates paid by employers and byintroducing a new and more efficient online portal for filing corporate income tax returns called ‘MyTax’.

DB2019 France France made paying taxes less costly by decreasing the corporate income tax rate, increasing the rate ofthe competitiveness and employment tax credit (CICE), and decreasing the rates for the territorialeconomic contribution as well as social security contributions paid by employers.

DB2019 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes less costly by decreasing the social tax rate paid by the employer and byreducing the corporate income tax rate to a flat rate.

DB2019 Italy Italy made paying taxes more costly by introducing lower exemptions on social security contributions paidby employers for employees hired between January 1, 2016, and December 12, 2016.

DB2019 Lithuania Lithuania made paying taxes easier by merging the filing and payment of two labor contributions andissuing pre-populated value added tax returns.

DB2019 Poland Poland made paying taxes more complicated by requiring the monthly reporting of value added tax returns,extending the list of goods and services subject to a reverse charge mechanism and introducing newreporting obligations for SAF-T files.

DB2018 Belgium Belgium made paying taxes less costly by reducing the social security contributions rates paid byemployers.

DB2018 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes more difficult by increasing the frequency and number of VAT audits, includingin cases of VAT cash refund requests. At the same time, Paying Taxes was made less costly following theintroduction of notional interest tax deductible expenses and an increase in the discount rate onimmovable property.

DB2018 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made paying taxes more complicated by introducing new requirements for filing VATcontrol statements.

DB2018 France France made paying taxes less costly by lowering rates for social security and training contributions.

DB2018 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes easier by improving the tax authority internal risk management system forselecting companies for a tax audit.

DB2018 Italy Italy made paying taxes less costly by temporarily exempting employers from social security contributions.Italy also made paying taxes easier by abolishing the VAT communication form.

DB2018 Lithuania Lithuania made paying taxes easier by introducing electronic system for filing and paying VAT, CIT andsocial security contributions. On the other hand, the environmental tax was increased.

DB2017 Croatia Croatia made paying taxes more complicated by introducing a radio and television fee, and eliminating thereduction of the Chamber of Economy fee for new companies.

DB2017 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes easier by introducing improvements to its internal processes and to theelectronic tax filing system. Cyprus also made paying taxes less costly by increasing the discount rateapplied on immovable property tax.

DB2017 Greece Greece made paying taxes more costly by increasing the corporate income tax rate.

DB2017 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes less costly for small and medium-sized businesses by allowing additionaldeduction for new acquisitions of land and buildings.

DB2017 Italy Italy made paying taxes easier by allowing full cost of labor to be deductible for regional tax on productiveactivities (IRAP) purposes, as well as updating coefficients used for calculation of tax on real estate (IMU)and municipal service tax (TASI). Furthermore, electronic system for preparing and paying labor taxes wasimproved.


Page 70

DB2017 Latvia Latvia made paying taxes less complicated by improving its online systems for filing corporate income taxreturn and mandatory labor contributions.

DB2017 Malta Malta made paying taxes more costly by replacing the capital gains tax with a property transfer tax,increasing the maximum social security contribution paid by employers.

DB2017 Netherlands The Netherlands made paying taxes less costly by lowering the rates paid by employers for healthinsurance contributions, special unemployment insurance, unemployment insurance and real estate taxes.The Netherlands also made paying taxes easier by improving the online system for paying corporateincome tax. However, the Netherlands made paying taxes more costly by increasing the rates fordisablement insurance contribution paid by employers, polder board tax and motor tax.

DB2017 Portugal Portugal made paying taxes easier and less costly by using better accounting software and enhancing theonline filing system of taxes and decreasing the corporate income tax rate.

DB2017 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made paying taxes less costly and easier by reducing the motor vehicle tax and thenumber of property tax payments.

DB2017 Spain Spain made paying taxes less costly by reducing the property tax rate, vehicle tax rate, tax on propertytransfer, and abolishing the environmental fee. Spain made paying taxes easier by introducing a newelectronic system for filing social security contributions.

DB2016 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes easier for companies by facilitating online payment of corporate income tax. Atthe same time, Cyprus raised the contribution rate for social insurance paid by employers, lowered the taxbrackets for the social contribution fund, raised the rate on interest income and increased the vehicle tax.

DB2016 Finland Finland made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income tax rate—though italso increased the total rate for social security contributions paid by employers and reduced the alloweddeductible amount for owners’ expenses.

DB2016 France France made paying taxes less costly for companies by introducing a credit against corporate income taxand reducing labor tax rates paid by employers.

DB2016 Greece Greece made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the rates for social security contributionspaid by employers, making insurance premiums fully tax deductible and lowering property tax rates. At thesame time, it defined entertainment expenses as nondeductible, reduced the depreciation rates for sometypes of fixed assets and increased the tax on interest income.

DB2016 Ireland Ireland made paying taxes more costly and complicated for companies by increasing landfill levies and byrequiring additional financial statements to be submitted with the income tax return.

DB2016 Latvia Latvia made paying taxes more complicated for companies by eliminating the possibility of deducting baddebt provisions. On the other hand, Latvia reduced the rate for social security contributions paid byemployers.

DB2016 Netherlands The Netherlands made paying taxes more costly for companies by increasing employer-paid laborcontributions as well as road taxes, property taxes and polder board taxes.

DB2016 Poland Poland made paying taxes easier for companies by introducing an electronic system for filing and payingVAT and transport tax—though it also made paying taxes more costly by increasing transport tax rates andcontributions to the National Disabled Fund paid by employers.

DB2016 Portugal Portugal made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income tax rate andincreasing the allowable amount of the loss carried forward. At the same time, Portugal slightly increasedthe vehicle tax.

DB2016 Romania Romania made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the rate for social security contributionsand the rate for accident risk fund contributions paid by employers.

DB2016 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made paying taxes easier for companies by introducing an electronic filing andpayment system for VAT—and made paying taxes less costly by reducing the corporate income tax rateand making medical health insurance tax deductible. At the same time, the Slovak Republic reduced thelimit on losses carried forward.

DB2016 Spain Spain made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing rates for corporate income, capital gainsand environment taxes—and made it easier by introducing the online Cl@ve system for filing VAT returns.At the same time, Spain reduced the amount allowable for depreciation of fixed assets and raised theceiling for social security contributions.

DB2016 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income taxrate and increasing the wage amount per employee that is exempted from social security contributionspaid by employers. On the other hand, the United Kingdom increased municipal tax rates and environmenttaxes.


Page 71

DB2015 Croatia Croatia made paying taxes more complicated for companies by raising the health insurance contributionrate, increasing the Croatian Chamber of Commerce fees and introducing more detailed filingrequirements for VAT. On the other hand, it abolished the contribution to the Croatian Chamber ofCommerce.

DB2015 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes easier for companies by reducing the number of provisional tax installments forcorporate income tax.

DB2015 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes easier and less costly for companies by abolishing the special tax that hadbeen temporarily introduced in 2010 and by reducing the vehicle tax rate.

DB2015 Latvia Latvia made paying taxes easier for companies by simplifying the VAT return, enhancing the electronicsystem for filing corporate income tax returns and reducing employers’ social security contribution rate.

DB2015 Portugal Portugal made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income tax rate andintroducing a reduced corporate tax rate for a portion of the taxable profits of qualifying small and medium-size enterprises.

DB2015 Romania Romania made paying taxes easier for companies, with the majority now using the electronic system forfiling and paying taxes.

DB2015 Spain Spain made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the statutory corporate income tax rate.

DB2015 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income taxrate. On the other hand, it increased the landfill tax.

DB2014 Croatia Croatia made paying taxes easier for companies by introducing an electronic system for social securitycontributions and promoting e-banking for the chamber of commerce fee and the radio and television fee.Croatia also made paying taxes less costly by reducing the rates for the forest and Chamber of Commercecontributions.

DB2014 Greece Greece made paying taxes more costly for companies by increasing the corporate income tax rate—though it also reduced the employers’ contribution rate to the social security fund.

DB2014 Romania Romania made paying taxes easier and less costly for companies by reducing the payment frequency forthe firm tax from quarterly to twice a year and by reducing the vehicle tax rate.

DB2014 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made paying taxes more costly for companies by increasing the corporate income taxrate and by adjusting land appraisal values.

DB2014 Sweden Sweden made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income tax rate.

DB2013 Croatia Croatia made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the health insurance contribution rate.

DB2013 Cyprus Cyprus made paying taxes more costly for companies by increasing the special defense contribution rateon interest income and introducing a private sector special contribution and a fixed annual fee forcompanies registered in Cyprus. At the same time, it simplified tax compliance by introducing electronicfiling for corporate income tax.

DB2013 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made paying taxes faster for companies by promoting the use of electronic facilities.

DB2013 Germany Germany made paying taxes more convenient for companies by canceling ELENA procedures andimplementing electronic filing and payment system for most taxes.

DB2013 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes easier for companies by abolishing the community tax. At the same time,Hungary increased health insurance contributions paid by the employer.

DB2013 Poland Poland made paying taxes easier for companies by promoting the use of electronic filing and paymentsystems—though it also made paying taxes more costly by increasing social security contributions.

DB2013 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made paying taxes easier for companies by implementing electronic filing andpayment of social security and health insurance contributions.

DB2013 Slovenia Slovenia made paying taxes easier and less costly for companies by implementing electronic filing andpayment of social security contributions and by reducing the corporate income tax rate.

DB2013 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made paying taxes less costly for companies by reducing the corporate income taxrate.

DB2012 Czech Republic The Czech Republic revised its tax legislation to simplify provisions relating to administrative proceduresand relationships between tax authorities and taxpayers.


Page 72


DB2012 Estonia In Estonia a municipal sales tax introduced in Tallinn made paying taxes costlier for firms, though a laterparliamentary measure abolished local sales taxes effective January 1, 2012.

DB2012 Finland Finland simplified reporting and payment for the value added tax and labor tax.

DB2012 Greece Greece reduced its corporate income tax rate.

DB2012 Hungary Hungary made paying taxes costlier for firms by introducing a sector-specific surtax

DB2012 Romania Romania made paying taxes easier for companies by introducing an electronic payment system and aunified return for social security contributions. It also abolished the annual minimum tax.

DB2011 Bulgaria Bulgaria reduced employer contribution rates for social security.

DB2011 Croatia Croatia made paying taxes more difficult and costly for companies by introducting a tourist fee.

DB2011 Czech Republic The Czech Republic simplified its labor tax processes and reduced employer contribution rates for socialsecurity.

DB2011 Estonia Estonia increased the unemployment insurance contribution rate.

DB2011 Hungary Hungary simplified taxes and tax bases.

DB2011 Lithuania Lithuania reduced corporate tax rates.

DB2011 Netherlands The Netherlands reduced the frequency of filing and paying value added taxes from monthly to quarterlyand allowed small entities to use their annual accounts as the basis for computing their corporate incometax.

DB2011 Portugal Portugal introduced a new social security code and lowered corporate tax rates.

DB2011 Romania Romania introduced tax changes, including a new minimum tax on profit, that made paying taxes morecostly for companies.

DB2011 Slovenia Slovenia abolished its payroll tax and reduced its corporate income tax rate.

DB2011 Sweden Sweden reduced profit and payroll tax rates


DB2019 Lithuania Lithuania made exporting easier by enhancing its automated customs data management system.

DB2015 Croatia Croatia made trading across borders easier by implementing a new electronic customs system.

DB2015 Poland Poland made trading across borders easier by implementing a new terminal operating system at the port ofGdansk.

DB2014 Croatia Croatia made trading across borders easier by improving the physical and information systeminfrastructure at the port of Rijeka and by streamlining export customs procedures in preparation foraccession to the Common Transit Convention of the European Union.

DB2014 Greece Greece made trading across borders easier by implementing a system allowing electronic submission ofcustoms declarations for exports.

DB2014 Latvia Latvia made trading across borders easier by reducing the number of documents required for importing.

DB2013 Czech Republic The Czech Republic reduced the time to export and import by allowing electronic submission of customsdeclarations and other documents.

DB2013 Hungary Hungary reduced the time to export and import by allowing electronic submission of customs declarationsand other documents.

DB2013 Netherlands The Netherlands made importing easier by introducing a new web-based system for cargo release at theport terminals in Rotterdam.

DB2013 Portugal Portugal made trading across borders easier by implementing an electronic single window for portprocedures.

DB2013 Spain Spain reduced the time to import by further expanding the use of electronic submission of customsdeclarations and improving the sharing of information among customs and other agencies.


Page 73

Enforcing Contracts

DB2012 Belgium Belgium made trading across borders faster by improving its risk-based profiling system for imports.

DB2012 Bulgaria Bulgaria made trading across borders faster by introducing online submission of customs declarationforms.

DB2012 Poland Poland made trading across borders faster by implementing electronic preparation and submission ofcustoms documents.

DB2012 Slovenia Slovenia made trading across borders faster by introducing online submission of customs declarationforms.

DB2011 Latvia Latvia reduced the time to export and import by introducing electronic submission of customs declarations.

DB2011 Lithuania Lithuania reduced the time to import by introducing, in compliance with EU law, an electronic system forsubmitting customs declarations.

DB2011 Spain Spain streamlined the documentation for imports by including tax-related information on its singleadministrative document.


DB2020 Germany Germany made enforcing contracts easier by introducing electronic filing of the initial complaint andelectronic service of process without the need for paper documents.

DB2019 Denmark Denmark made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an online platform that allows users to file theinitial complaint electronically and judges and lawyers to manage cases electronically.

DB2019 Ireland Ireland made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a consolidated law on voluntary mediation.

DB2019 Poland Poland made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an automated system to assign cases to judgesrandomly.

DB2019 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made enforcing contracts easier by implementing electronic service of process.

DB2019 Slovenia Slovenia made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a pre-trial conference as part of the casemanagement techniques used in court.

DB2018 Hungary Hungary made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a system that allows users to pay court feeselectronically.

DB2018 Ireland Ireland made enforcing contracts easier by making performance measurement reports publicly available toshow the court’s performance and the progress of cases through the court.

DB2018 Latvia Latvia made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic case management system for the useof judges.

DB2018 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made enforcing contracts easier by adopting a new code of civil procedure thatintroduces pre-trial conference as part of the case management techniques used in court. The SlovakRepublic also made enforcing contracts easier by reducing the fees that are advanced by the plaintiff toenforce a judgment.

DB2018 Spain Spain made enforcing contracts easier by reducing court fees for filing a claim.

DB2017 Greece Greece made enforcing contracts easier by amending its rules of civil procedure to introduce tighter ruleson adjournments, impose deadlines for key court events and limit the recourses that can be lodged duringenforcement proceedings.

DB2017 Hungary Hungary made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic filing system.

DB2017 Spain Spain made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a mandatory electronic filing system for court users.

DB2016 Croatia Croatia made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic system to handle public sales ofmovable assets and by streamlining the enforcement process as a whole.

DB2016 Cyprus Cyprus made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a fast-track simplified procedure for claims worthless than €3,000.

DB2016 Italy Italy made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a mandatory electronic filing system for court users,simplifying the rules for electronic service of process and automating the enforcement process.


Page 74


DB2016 Latvia Latvia made enforcing contracts easier by restructuring its courts and by introducing comprehensivespecialized laws regulating domestic arbitration and voluntary mediation.

DB2016 Romania Romania made enforcing contracts easier by transferring some enforcement responsibilities from the courtto the bailiff, by making it easier for the bailiff to obtain information from third parties and by making use ofthe electronic auction registry mandatory.

DB2016 United Kingdom The United Kingdom made enforcing contracts more costly by increasing the court fees for filing a claim.

DB2015 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made enforcing contracts easier by amending its civil procedure code and modifyingthe monetary jurisdictions of its courts.

DB2015 Greece Greece made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic filing system for court users.

DB2015 Ireland Ireland made enforcing contracts easier by modifying the monetary jurisdictions of its courts.

DB2015 Lithuania Lithuania made enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic filing system for court users.

DB2015 Portugal Portugal made enforcing contracts easier by adopting a new code of civil procedure designed to reducecase backlogs, streamline court procedures, enhance the role of judges and speed up the resolution ofstandard civil and commercial disputes.

DB2014 Croatia Croatia made enforcing contracts easier by streamlining litigation proceedings and transferring certainenforcement procedures from the courts to state agencies.

DB2014 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made enforcing contracts easier by simplifying and speeding up the proceedings forthe execution and enforcement of judgments.

DB2014 Estonia Estonia made enforcing contracts easier by lowering court fees.

DB2014 Italy Italy made enforcing contracts easier by regulating attorneys’ fees and streamlining some courtproceedings.

DB2014 Romania Romania made enforcing contracts easier by adopting a new civil procedure code that streamlines andspeeds up all court proceedings.

DB2013 Poland Poland made enforcing contracts easier by amending the civil procedure code and appointing more judgesto commercial courts.

DB2013 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic made enforcing contracts easier by adopting several amendments to the code of civilprocedure intended to simplify and speed up proceedings as well as to limit obstructive tactics by theparties to a case.

DB2011 United Kingdom The United Kingdom improved the process for enforcing contracts by modernizing civil procedures in thecommercial court.


DB2019 Belgium Belgium made resolving insolvency easier by streamlining the insolvency framework, expanding the scopeof the law and introducing new preventive measures.

DB2017 Poland Poland made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new restructuring mechanisms, changing votingprocedures for restructuring plans and allowing creditors greater participation in insolvency proceedings. Italso established a central restructuring and bankruptcy register and released guidelines for theremuneration of insolvency representatives.

DB2016 Cyprus Cyprus made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a reorganization procedure as well as provisionsto facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and allow creditorsgreater participation in important decisions during the proceedings.

DB2016 Romania Romania improved its insolvency system by introducing time limits for the observation period (during whicha reorganization plan must be confirmed or a declaration of bankruptcy made) and for the implementationof the reorganization plan; by introducing additional minimum voting requirements for the approval of thereorganization plan; and by clarifying rules on voidable transactions and on payment priority for claims ofpost-commencement creditors.

DB2015 Belgium Belgium made resolving insolvency more difficult by establishing additional requirements for commencingreorganization proceedings, including the submission of documents verified by external parties.


Page 75

DB2015 Slovenia Slovenia made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a simplified reorganization procedure for smallcompanies and a preventive restructuring procedure for medium-size and large ones, by allowing creditorsgreater participation in the management of the debtor and by establishing provisions for an increase inshare capital through debt-equity swaps.

DB2015 Spain Spain made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new rules for out-of-court restructuring, introducingprovisions applicable to prepackaged reorganizations and making insolvency proceedings more public.

DB2014 Bulgaria Bulgaria made resolving insolvency easier by expanding the basis for commencement of insolvencyproceedings and making it easier to void suspect transactions.

DB2014 Croatia Croatia made resolving insolvency easier by introducing an expedited out-of-court restructuring procedure.

DB2014 Italy Italy made resolving insolvency easier through an amendment to its bankruptcy code that introduces a stayperiod for enforcement actions while the debtor is preparing a restructuring plan, makes it easier to convertfrom one type of restructuring proceeding to another, facilitates continued operation by the debtor duringrestructuring and imposes stricter requirements on auditors evaluating a restructuring plan.

DB2013 Germany Germany strengthened its insolvency process by adopting a new insolvency law that facilitates in-courtrestructurings of distressed companies and increases participation by creditors.

DB2013 Greece Greece enhanced its insolvency process by abolishing the conciliation procedure and introducing a newrehabilitation proceeding.

DB2013 Lithuania Lithuania made resolving insolvency easier by establishing which cases against the company’s propertyshall be taken to the bankruptcy court, tightening the time frame for decisions on appeals, abolishing thecourt’s obligation to individually notify creditors and other stakeholders about restructuring proceedingsand setting new time limits for creditors to file claims.

DB2013 Poland Poland strengthened its insolvency process by updating guidelines on the information and documents thatneed to be included in the bankruptcy petition and by granting secured creditors the right to take overclaims encumbered with financial pledges in case of liquidation.

DB2013 Portugal Portugal made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new insolvency law that expedites liquidationprocedures and creates fast-track mechanisms both in and out of court.

DB2013 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic improved its insolvency process by redefining the roles and powers of creditors andtrustees, strengthening the rights of secured creditors and redefining rules for the conversion ofrestructuring into a bankruptcy proceeding.

DB2013 Slovenia Slovenia strengthened its insolvency process by requiring that the debtor offer creditors payment of atleast 50% of the claims within 4 years; giving greater power to the creditors’ committee in a bankruptcyproceeding; prohibiting insolvency administrators from allowing relatives to render services associated withthe bankruptcy proceeding; and establishing fines for members of management that violate certainobligations or prohibitions.

DB2013 Spain Spain strengthened its insolvency process by making workouts easier, offering more protections forrefinancing agreements, allowing conversion from reorganization into liquidation at any time, allowingreliefs of the stay under certain circumstances and permitting the judge to determine whether an asset ofthe insolvent company is necessary for its continued operation.

DB2012 Austria Austria passed a new law that simplifies restructuring proceedings and gives preferential consideration tothe interests of the debtors.

DB2012 Bulgaria Bulgaria amended its commerce act to extend further rights to secured creditors and increase thetransparency of insolvency proceedings.

DB2012 Denmark Denmark introduced new rules on company reorganization, which led to the elimination of the suspension-of-payments regime.

DB2012 France France passed a law that enables debtors to implement a restructuring plan with financial creditors only,without affecting trade creditors.

DB2012 Italy Italy introduced debt restructuring and reorganization procedures as alternatives to bankruptcyproceedings and extended further rights to secured creditors during insolvency proceedings.

DB2012 Latvia Latvia adopted a new insolvency law that streamlines and expedites the insolvency process andintroduces a reorganization option for companies.

DB2012 Lithuania Lithuania amended its reorganization law to simplify and shorten reorganization proceedings, grant priorityto secured creditors and introduce professional requirements for insolvency administrators.


Page 76

Employing Workers

DB2012 Poland Poland amended its bankruptcy and reorganization law to simplify court procedures and extend morerights to secured creditors.

DB2012 Romania Romania amended its insolvency law to shorten the duration of insolvency proceedings.

DB2012 Slovenia Slovenia simplified and streamlined the insolvency process and strengthened professional requirementsfor insolvency administrators.

DB2011 Belgium Belgium introduced a new law that will promote and facilitate the survival of viable businessesexperiencing financial difficulties.

DB2011 Czech Republic The Czech Republic made it easier to deal with insolvency by introducing further legal amendments torestrict setoffs in insolvency cases and suspending for some insolvent debtors the obligation to file forbankruptcy.

DB2011 Estonia Amendments to Estonia’s recent insolvency law increased the chances that viable businesses will surviveinsolvency by improving procedures and changing the qualification requirements for insolvencyadministrators.

DB2011 Hungary Amendments to Hungary’s bankruptcy law encourage insolvent companies to consider reachingagreements with creditors out of court so as to avoid bankruptcy.

DB2011 Latvia Latvia introduced a mechanism for out-of-court settlement of insolvencies to alleviate pressure on courtsand tightened some procedural deadlines.

DB2011 Lithuania Lithuania introduced regulations relating to insolvency administrators that set out clear rules of liability forviolations of law.

DB2011 Romania Substantial amendments to Romania’s bankruptcy laws—introducing, among other things, a procedure forout-of-court workouts—made dealing with insolvency easier.

DB2011 Spain Spain amended its regulations governing insolvency proceedings with the aim of reducing the cost andtime. The new regulations also introduced out-of-court workouts.

DB2011 United Kingdom Amendments to the United Kingdom’s insolvency rules streamline bankruptcy procedures, favor the sale ofthe firm as a whole and improve the calculation of administrators’ fees.


DB2020 Austria Austria changed regulations pertaining to working time.

DB2020 Hungary Hungary changed regulations pertaining to overtime work.

DB2020 Italy Italy changed regulations pertaining to fixed-term contracts.

DB2020 Luxembourg Luxembourg changed regulations pertaining to paid annual leave.

DB2020 Malta Malta changed regulations pertaining to paid annual leave.

DB2020 Slovak Republic Slovak Republic increased wage premiums for work performed during days of weekly rest and at night.

DB2019 Bulgaria Bulgaria amended its legislation to extend the duration of the contribution period that is required before anemployee can become eligible for unemployment protection.

DB2019 France France amended its labor code to modify the amount of severance payments for employees after one, fiveand ten years of employment.

DB2019 Lithuania Lithuania changed legislation on working hours, paid annual leave, as well as notice period and severancepayments in case of redundancy.

DB2019 Luxembourg Luxembourg increased post-natal maternity leave, amended statutory provisions for leave for personalreasons and family leave, introduced state co-financing of professional trainings and amended pre-retirement rules.

DB2019 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic changed regulation pertaining to premiums for work on day of weekly rest and nightwork.

DB2018 Finland Finland increased the length of the maximum probationary period for permanent employees.


Page 77

DB2018 Latvia Latvia amended its legislation to extend the duration of the contribution period that is required before anemployee can become eligible for unemployment protection.

DB2017 Cyprus Cyprus amended its legislation to allow shops and supermarkets to operate seven days a week

DB2017 France France reformed its labor legislation by introducing changes to the administration of labor tribunals,extending Sunday and evening work in areas designated as international tourist zones and facilitatingemployee employer dialogue.

DB2017 Hungary Hungary amended legislation to remove restrictions limiting the operating hours for retail shops.

DB2017 Netherlands The Netherlands reduced the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts from 36 to 24 months. Severancepay was introduced for redundancy dismissals for employees with at least 2 years of continuousemployment.

DB2017 Poland Poland reduced the maximum duration of fixed term contracts to 33 months and limited the total number offixed term contracts between the same employer and employee to three.

DB2017 Portugal Portugal reduced the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts.

DB2016 Croatia 1) Croatia eliminated the requirement to retrain or reassign employees before they can be made redundant. 2) In accordance with the Minimal Wage Act, Art. 1, published in Official Gazette No.151/2014, the minimum wage has been increased from

3.017,61 Kuna/month to 3.029,55 Croatian Kuna/month grosssalary, in force for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

DB2016 Germany Germany introduced a minimum wage of €8.50 an hour in accordance with the Act on Minimum Wages(Mindestlohngesetz), which took effect on January 1, 2015.

DB2016 Hungary Hungary adopted legislation limiting the operating hours for retail shops.

DB2016 Italy Italy adopted the Jobs Act, which simplifies redundancy rules and encourages out-of-court reconciliation,reducing the time and cost for resolving labor disputes. The new legislation also broadens the coverage ofunemployment insurance.

DB2016 Latvia 1) Latvia increased the maximum duration of a single fixed-term contract from 36 months to 60. 2) Latviaincreased its minimum wage

DB2016 Portugal Portugal introduced priority rules for redundancy dismissals and new regulations for collective bargainingagreements.

DB2015 Belgium Belgium increased the notice period for redundancy dismissals.

DB2015 Croatia Croatia lifted the 3-year limit on the duration of first-time fixed-term contracts.

DB2015 Finland Finland eliminated the requirement to notify a third party before dismissing a redundant employee or groupof redundant employees.

DB2015 France France substantially amended its labor market regulations, including the provisions dealing with large-scale collective redundancy processes.

DB2015 Italy Italy relaxed the conditions for using fixed-term contracts but reduced their maximum duration to 36months.

DB2015 Portugal Portugal reduced the amount of severance pay per year of service and increased the maximum cumulativeduration of fixed-term contracts.

DB2014 Czech Republic The Czech Republic abolished the minimum wage for young workers.

DB2014 Hungary Hungary reduced the premium for night work and weekly holiday work and increased the minimum wage.

DB2014 Ireland Ireland ended a 60% rebate for employers on severance payments and eliminated the requirement forthird-party notification when terminating a redundant worker.

DB2014 Portugal Portugal reduced the wage premium for weekly holiday work and abolished priority rules for redundancydismissals.

DB2014 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic reduced the maximum cumulative duration of fixed-term contracts, reintroduced therequirement for third-party notification when terminating an employee, reintroduced mandatory severancepay for workers with more than 2 years of service in the company and increased the minimum wage.

DB2014 Slovenia Slovenia abolished priority rules for reemployment, introduced priority rules for massive redundancydismissals, and changed notice period and severance pay provisions for redundancy dismissals.


Page 78

DB2014 Spain Spain reduced the maximum cumulative duration of fixed-term contracts and increased the minimumwage.

DB2014 United Kingdom United Kingdom increased the cap on weekly wage provided to employees on the severance payment andthe minimum wage.

DB2013 Czech Republic The Czech Republic increased the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts and reduced the severancepay applicable in cases of redundancy dismissals of employees with one year of service.

DB2013 Latvia Latvia eliminated notification requirements to third parties in cases of redundancy dismissal.

DB2013 Portugal Portugal increased the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts and reduced the severance payapplicable in cases of redundancy dismissals.

DB2013 Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic increased the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts, eliminated notificationrequirements to third parties in case of redundancy dismissals and reduced redundancy costs.

DB2013 Spain Spain temporarily allowed unlimited duration of fixed-term contracts.

DB2013 United Kingdom The United Kingdom increased redundancy costs of the severance pay applicable in cases of redundancydismissals.

DB2012 Belgium Belgium increased the severance payment obligation.

DB2012 Greece Greece decreased the severance pay applicable in case of redundancy dismissals.

DB2012 Lithuania Lithuania allowed fixed-term contracts to be concluded for permanent tasks (until 31 July 2012).

DB2012 Romania Romania increased the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts and also decreased the severance payapplicable in case of redundancy dismissal of employees.

DB2012 United Kingdom United Kingdom increased the severance payment obligation applicable in cases of redundancydismissals.

DB2011 Croatia Croatia increased the mandatory paid annual leave.

DB2011 Estonia Estonia eliminated the applicable priority rules for dismissals as well as the obligation to notify and obtainthe approval of a third party in case of redundancy dismissals. It also removed restrictions on night workand reduced notice period and severance payment applicable in case of redundancy dismissals.

DB2011 Poland Poland reduced the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts.

DB2011 Portugal Portugal approved a new Labor Code.

DB2011 Slovak Republic Slovak Republic reduced the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts.

DB2011 Spain Spain reduced the notice period applicable in case of redundancy dismissals.


Page 79


Page 80

Documents

European Union (EU) · economies in the Doing Business sample since 2005. An economy’s ease of doing business score is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the